Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Hopism

I've PRODed this article as a neologism and noticed the article's editor attempting to fix it up. This all seems to be good faith editing on his/her part. Unfortunately, what is appearing is some original research attempting to establish this concept of "hopism" as a cultural movement. I find myself with little time at the moment to intervene in a helpful way: I think the editor means well and is trying to create a legitimate article. I wonder of there's anyone here who has the time to give him/her a shout and offer some suggestions. freshacconci talktalk 14:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind: as I was writing the above, the article was speedied. Still, perhaps someone could explain to the editor why it was deleted and why it was probably not an appropriate article. freshacconci talktalk 14:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Who was the editor? I'm curious what "hopism" is. I'm sorry I didn't get to see the article. I often find explanations of art movements interesting, even though I am usually skeptical of the explanation. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The editor is Evelynquinlan. I don't think I can recall for certain what the idea was about, although it did seem to revolve around Obama's "hope" rhetoric. Perhaps an administrator could userfy the article, however my gut feeling is that there's nothing there to work with. freshacconci talktalk 14:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"Hopism is a cultural movement where everything is informed by hope. This movement, founded by Irish artist Evelyn Quinlan, was borne out of a global conscious of the financial crisis of 2007-2010." No point userfying. Ty 14:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot, Tyrenius. I was wondering if it was tied to the word "hope." Thank you Freshacconci. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Industrial design and Design portal

Hi guys! We just opened the Wikipedia:WikiProject Industrial design for business and would appreciate if you could put a link to it in your 'Similar WikiProjects' section. Thanks in advance! --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Horus

I'd appreciate any other opinions concerning whether or not to include a section into the Horus article comparing Horus to Jesus. Discussion here: [1], the section can be found here: [2] at Jesus in comparative mythology. This dispute has been ongoing for about 4 or 5 years...Modernist (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nora Simpson paintings (Part B)

Dear Bus Stop Where do I find this article on Nora Simpson? foorcoolcts15@msn. Thanks kindly.71.209.204.66 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know anything about the artist, except that there is an article on her (Nora Simpson). Also, I should add, that you're not supposed to put your e-mail address here. You should probably remove it.
Oh, I just noticed, you asked where you find this article. Just click on the name of the artist. A link will automatically take you there. Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Article on Russian artist needs a rescue

Hello! I wonder if anyone here would have the time or inclination to rewrite the article about Andrey Bartenev. The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Bartenev. I sometimes monitor the Articles for Deletion page and I think this one is ripe for a rescue. The nomination was for "non-notable" but he clearly appears to be notable enough for Wikipedia standards - he has been written up in Time Magazine and other prominent mainstream sources. But the article as written is totally non-encyclopedic. In other words the subject, Bartenev, is worthy of an article but the article needs to be completely rewritten. I sometimes do this (as a member of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron) but I am hopelessly out of my depth on this subject. I don't even know enough about art to make an infobox, much less an article. I thought maybe someone at this project would be able to do it. If anyone here wants to rewrite the page you would be doing the world and Wikipedia a favor. For starters, several good references have been posted at the AfD page.

BTW if this idea interests you but you don't have time to do it now, post a comment at the AfD page saying you plan to undertake it; that alone might be enough to save the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Consulting this project about the word 'artist'

Greetings. I'm a music editor, also a member of the Arts Project. I'm thinking of starting a discussion about subcategories of Category:Creative works, currently in something of a mess (which means that projects don't have clear category structures for banners, maintenance, bots run etc.)

Before doing that I'd like to ask members here about a key category problem – the word 'artist'. Should 'artist' be used exclusively to mean 'visual artist', (as opposed to other 'art' creators such writers and composers etc)? What do editors here think? --Kleinzach 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should, and plain "art" for visual arts, as opposed to "arts" or art in combination with some other word - "art song", "recording artist" etc . This is well accepted at Cfd for category names, though of course not everyone is aware of it. All the trees starting from Category:Artists and Category:Art should only contain visual artists/art. Category:Works by artist should become Category:Works by creator or similar. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Another possibility would be to leave Category:Works by artist to visual artists and create new cats such as Category:Works by composer under Category:Creative works, but that can be discussed more broadly at the Arts Project. Right now, it would be good to have a clear consensus here on the use of the word 'artist'. --Kleinzach 02:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems appropriate to have an overall category. The authors and choreographers should be there too. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
We already have an overall category: Category:Creative works. --Kleinzach 04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I know. But either you mix in all the different types of creator with the "by medium/topic/nationality etc etc cats, which seems very untidy, or you have a separate category below, as now but more comprehensive. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. Let's discuss this in the wider discussion that will follow once this conservation has finished. --Kleinzach 04:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I also feel pretty strongly that the word artist should be reserved primarily for referring to visual artists. I really don't understand what is being discussed here, so forgive me if my comments are off the mark. But I think the central meaning of the word artist has to do with visual arts — painting and sculpture. It feels almost like a borrowing when creative people in the field of music are referred to as "artists." It's OK, of course. But I think that relationship that I just described exists between the two applications of that term. Bus stop (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It's really just that categories such as Category:Italian artists have always been full of visual artists, & we don't want to have to rename them all "visual artists", or have ballet-dancers in them. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Bus stop and Johnbod that the word artist refer exclusively to visual art, art, and visual artists...Modernist (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not have "Category:Italian artists (visual)", and "Category:Italian artists (music)"? (Two separate categories.) Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Why, when we already have Category:Italian musicians? Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that. Then I'm back not understanding what this is about. Bus stop (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
There are several art projects. There is the Visual arts project (we are here now) and the arts project here: [3], and the question has to do with the use of the word artist vis a vis the arts project via film, music, dance, theatre, performance, etc...Modernist (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, then I sort of understand. My previous point is what I'd stand by — that artist has as its primary meaning the visual arts application. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That's right. This is just the first step. (It's good there is agreement here as this should make everything easier.) The next part of the process will be to consult with the other projects at the umbrella Arts Project. I'll start the discussion when everyone has had their say here. --Kleinzach 04:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started the new discussion here at the Arts Project. Please participate! --Kleinzach 23:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It was proposed at the discussion:
"That Category:Works by artist be defined as 'creative works by visual artists, including painters, draughtsmen, printmakers, sculptors and similar', and this text be added to the category page."
This was not approved, as lacking consensus. This project may like to consider how this category should be used in the future. --Kleinzach 01:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Color symbolism and psychology

I'd like to request that interested VisArts project members participate in both the overhaul of this article as well as ongoing RfD discussions surrounding it.

This article seems to be the subject of a small group of individuals who are determined to uphold an AfD that was closed on the 14th with only five votes total, all in support.

I have requested review, and I have made radical overhauls to the content, but still have the very same editors claiming it "not good enough". It's worth noting that ALL the editors in question come from the United Kingdom, and ALL have participated in the subsequent RfD. I've filed a checkuser request on this front, as I find it suspicious to say the least. I still have one editor engaging in WP:TEND, following me around and questioning every edit I make in trying to rescue the article. At this point, I have disengaged, but I feel it rather obvious that their ongoing WP:POLICY obstructions are just edit warring by another means, but I do not have the standing individually to stand up to it alone. Thanks! Ender78 (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Portrait of a Young Man (Raphael)

Finding many redlinks, I've stubbed this article. While most sources say the painting is the most sought-after painting since its theft by Hans Frank during the German invasion of Poland, others state that it was housed at the Museum of Fine Arts (Budapest) until stolen in 1983 and found again a few months later. Anyone with input who wishes to clarify this, please see discuss on the article's talk page. Thanks! Ruodyssey (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the value of navigational templates in articles on artists

User_talk:Cygnis_insignis#Blake_template_2 Please comment there. Thanks, Lithoderm 05:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis has taken to simply deleting parts of the discussion he doesn't like, so it is useless to continue the debate on his user talk page.[4] Ty 17:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Discussion_on_whether_navigational_templates_adhere_to_core_policy. Ty 17:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

New user

There is a new editor working art-related article, Artiquities. All edits appear to be good faith and decidedly bold. However, a few seem to be heavy-handed, with large sections of text being removed for the sake of "cleaning up". I reverted a couple of edits that I thought were too much: I don't want to bite him, but we may want to keep an eye on some of the bigger edits. I sent him a welcome message which he promptly removed (his call, but it was a bit hasty, I thought). freshacconci talktalk 15:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor is adding material about Henry Bond to a number of articles. There is nothing wrong with this in itself, but is questionable in certain instances, e.g. in Young British Artists, where there is removal of material about Hirst and Freedman as unreferenced (which it is, but which I took from sources before inline cites became mandatory) and simultaneously adding unreferenced material about Henry Bond.[5] An edit to Sarah Lucas with the summary "Added link to East Country Yard Show/some clean up" removes mention of Angus Fairhurst, Damien Hirst, and Gary Hume as colleagues in the Freeze exhibition, yet includes the name of Henry Bond in the far less well known East Country Yard Show.[6] Ty 14:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Bondstudio (talk · contribs) also mostly adds Bond-related photos with not-really-adequate copyright status, especially since some involve recycled 1950s news or crime-scene photos of who knows what copyright status. I have revised the most cuckoo-ish edits mentioned above to include all the material. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Good. Karljammer (talk · contribs) has 8 edits all to East Country Yard Show, which he started, except for one adding Henry Bond to list of artists in Young British Artists. Ty 15:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course the guy has students. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not worried who adds what, as long as it follows NPOV etc and puts Bond in the proper perspective. Some useful material has been added. Ty 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss my presence. And thanks for not biting this newcomer. I am still learning, that is sure, and I have plenty to learn from the esteemed editors above that have taken the trouble to discuss and post links for me. I will try to be less heavy-handed. I am here to contribute where I can. I am an experienced editor, but not yet on Wikipedia (I have only done 102 edits so far).--Artiquities (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bond

Considering the recent appearance of certain articles, e.g., October 26 1993, Brilliant!, The Cult of the Street, East Country Yard Show do editors suggest that Bond should get added to the list of Young British Artists, or do they, as I perhaps do, believe that he ultimately remains somewhat disconnected from that group? --notwithstanding that several reliable articles include his work under that rubric. --Artiquities (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We add content as derived from reliable sources, which wikipedia articles do not count as. If such sources describe Bond as a YBA, then add his name + the reference(s). If sources don't do that, then it would be original research for a wikipedia editor to do so. Ty 05:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Artwork Infobox

Proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Advice_for_the_cultural_sector#It.27s_time_for_a_re-think_of_the_Artwork_Infobox. Ty 14:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is ongoing and could do with a couple of people from the VisArts project's opinion. Please lend us your thoughts: Wikipedia_talk:Advice_for_the_cultural_sector#artwork_infobox_redux. Thanks, Witty Lama 04:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Demi's Birthday Suit

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as your project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Demi's Birthday Suit/GA2. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Photography in Denmark

A few minutes ago I nominated Photography in Denmark for "GA". (None of its content is mine; I've just done some gnomish things to it. Almost all of the credit for it should go to User:Ipigott.) Immediately after nominating it, I noticed that this Project rates it "C". If it merits a "B", please amend this; if it doesn't merit a "B", please say why on its talk page so that it may be improved. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You will have to ask User:Ipigott: he rated it![7] Ty 23:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Quite so - now rated B. I wouldn't worry too much about our ratings frankly; the selection board is often drunk. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, is he? Ty 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama

Hi All,

I am trying to get List of Smithsonian museums to FL status and a question has arised that i hope someone here will be able to answer about "Freedom of Panorama." I know that images of building are alright, but there is a problem with when a sculpture is also in the picture. I have 2 pictures in the List that this happens in, one (The Hirshorn museum) being on wikipedia for 5 years the other(National Museum of Air and Space) for 4 with out a problem. Are these photos OK according to the U.S.'s Freedom or panorama or other laws? If it is not ok then there must be a ton of images in commons that should not be there. Could this be a special circumstance since it is on federal lands? If this is not appropriate to post here i am sorry, but i do not know where else to ask.

Thank you in advance --Found5dollar (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC

Best to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Ty 14:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually [8] is the best page to start at. If this is not on our main page, I will add. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Surrealism in the United States redirects to an individual

It's very misleading, and not at all what one would expect. The page it points to, Franklin Rosemont, is about an individual who seems to be a modern surrealistic poet. Can the very broad article title "Surrealism in the United States", which really should mean something else entirely, please be disentangled from the article about Mr. Rosemont? I also note that Surrealist Movement in the United States redirects to the Chicago Surrealist Group, founded by the same Mr. Rosemont, which is a single small group in Chicago dating to 1966 and probably does not encompass all that is the US surrealist movement. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirected to Surrealism#World_War_II_and_the_Post_War_period. You can change redirects yourself if you want. Ty 04:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Raphael image layout

There is a discussion on how to handle the pictures around the lead. Comments welcome at Talk:Raphael#Summary. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hurry, hurry, genuine free offer!

Apparently - [9]. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked and I already have access through my University. So I did some playing with it, and it was pretty disappointing. I did an image search for Thomas Eakins (3 false positives, 0 actual hits), Thomas Cole (6 false positives, 0 hits), and Picasso (8 hits, 7 false positives and 1 missing image). Can someone explain to me what all the hub-bub is about? Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, its free. Perhaps not great on art history, though. Still, better than a kick in the teeth. Ceoil sláinte 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes every little thing helps :)...Modernist (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It's book-based - general reference works - & they never have many images. Sometimes, as with Grove art, which is certainly the best general art encyclopedia, most of the image licenses don't cover online use, so they aren't in the web version. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations and Divisions in Visionary Art

I've been attempting to weed out uncited organizations in the Visionary art article, and have met with passionate resistance from one editor. I can't find these organizations mentioned in third-party sources, but they keep returning to the article. Somewhat less troublesome is the division between "old masters" and just plain artists. This seems like original research as well, but I've only tagged the issue, and haven't begun to actually address it.

Thanks - JeffJonez (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pin-up girl could use some work

Pin-up girl seems to be slowing turning into a de facto category. The majority of the article is wikilinks to articles about individual models. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this really come under Visual arts? I see it has the project template. Thoughts anyone? Ty 04:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that the illustrations of these models are art, but the models themselves of course are not. If they were divided into separate articles, then the article on illustrations would fall under this project- I'm sure someone has written their dissertation on the topic. Of course we aren't dealing with la maja desnuda (or are we?), but we can't make decisions based on value judgments- this is not Wikiproject Fine Arts, but Visual Arts.... Some of the same classificatory problems must apply to nose art, I'd imagine. Lithoderm 07:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that "pin-up girl" has the high-mindedness that we expect from art. I think Tyrenius is questioning whether Pin-up girl falls "within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts." Art is not just anything that is "visual," therefore perhaps we should consider severing the tie between this article and the "WikiProject Visual arts." Pin-up girl might more logically be a part of WP:HPHOTOG, the "WikiProject History of photography." Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but according to the article many of these works are painted or drawn illustrations. Looking at similar articles, our banner is on Talk:History_of_erotic_depictions but not Talk:Centerfold..... maybe WP:WikiProject Pornography would be best, as these are certainly softcore porn. Unless that would imply a value judgment? Lithoderm 01:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that the article is Pin-up girl and only two sentences mentioning illustrations are relevant to this project. A lot more of the text is relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography. Ty 04:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed VA tag and replaced with Photography one. If anyone disagrees, feel free to change (and do some work on it!). Ty 13:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing Paintings

"The Economist" 13 March 2010 page 88 has an article on Matisse. They mention his monumental painting "Bathers by the Sea." Also his masterpiece "The Moroccans." Both are missing from your list! PeterT2 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT... Ty 13:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style

I've posted this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style:

This has been in Category:Wikipedia style guideline proposals for some time now. It has been worked on by several people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts since it was begun in 2005 and is now pretty stable. I would like to add it to the "official" list, and will do so if no one objects. Of course improvements, suggestions or comments on specific points are welcome - please use the talk page there. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project.

Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 08:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

But the link is red? Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
yes, it is red now, my apologies for not explaining correctly, many editors were confused. It will be blue in the next few hours.
Here is my explanation:
User_talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects#Confusion_over_wikiproject_message
Thanks for pointing this out Johnbod
Okip 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
What - there are none! Amazing! Well done that project - let's all have a drink. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
A cautious drink maybe - could be down to all the unreferenced articles lacking the {{Visual arts}} tag! Ty 13:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It is possible project, that you simply need to tag more articles :)
Update: As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 9/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Munich School

The article is weighted exclusively toward Greek artists who studied at the Munich School. I don't possess much information about the school, other than what's in books on American artists who studied there, but if the article is to have any credibility I suspect a massive rewrite will be needed to restore context. This was, after all, a German academy that nourished native artists, as well as painters from all over the world. I think I've read that at one time it was, after Paris, the second favorite destination for American art students. Perhaps someone knows more about this. JNW (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Academy of Fine Arts Munich, a derisory stub with a list, is the school itself. I've said on the talk page what I think we should do with the Greeks (school in the sense of "Florentine school"), but the Academy/school stub could certainly be expanded. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture needed

So I've been tracking down Thomas Eakins works and listing them at List of works by Thomas Eakins. I had a small breakthrough the other day - I found #100 (Studies of a Baby). It's owned by the Duke-Semans Fine Arts Foundation, and usually stored (but not displayed) in the Nasher museum. However, the Nasher museum recently loaned it out to the Asheville Museum of Art, where it is part of their exhibit Limners to Facebook: Portraiture from the 19th to the 21st Century. It will be on display there until late July. I would like someone in the area to photograph it. I talked with the curator at the Asheville museum and he said it would be OK as long as Douglas Zinn, director of the Duke-Semans Foundation, approved it. Raul654 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you cross-posted at WikiProject North Carolina... you might also post at Wikipedia:Requested_pictures/Arts#Visual_Arts, although I'm not sure how many people check there. Lithoderm 07:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So I talked with Douglas Zinn today, explaining what I was doing, and he said it was fine with him. He asked that I put my request in writing and email him, which I'll be doing very soon. Raul654 (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I recommend contacting User:Ken Thomas, a photographer who operates in the Western North Carolina area. Bms4880 (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a shot. Raul, if you could forward me a copy of the permission you get from Zinn that might be very helpful - or simply forward it to the curator of the Asheville museum and let them know I'll be doing the photo. If the piece isn't well-lit I may need to use a flash and/or tripod, and museums can get kind of touchy about that sort of thing. Ken Thomas (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I got Zinn's permission over the phone. I haven't heard back from him by email. When I do, I'll forward it to you and CC Frank Thomson, the curator of the Asheville museum. Raul654 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Visual arts

Doesn't this need an "importance" parameter? Discuss at Template_talk:Visual_arts#Importance_parameter. Ty 13:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans Hofmann

I would appreciate any opinions here [10], thanks...Modernist (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Medieval art

There is a dispute at Talk:Medieval_art#.22Medieval_contact_zone.22 as to whether or not to include a context-setting paragraph on Islamic art. Comments are welcome. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing articles

Could you guys take a look at Wikipedia:Stanford Archive answers? There's dozens and dozens of missing art articles listed there, and I'd like help in turning some of those red links blue. From just the first two subpages, I see:

Also, there's a much smaller related page, Wikipedia:ACF Regionals answers, that has three more:

I'd appreciate any help in knocking out these or other articles listed there. Raul654 (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Francis Bacon is a book, I think you'll find - properly "The Proficience and Advancement of Learning" (1605). We have far too many short stubs on individual works of art that frankly imo just clutter the place up, and never get improved. That these appear on some other list is not really the best way to choose works to add. There are at least 3 different "Christ Driving the Money Changers From the Temple" by El Greco, btw, though no doubt the Washington (is it?) one is meant here. It isn't realistic to expect articles on even all the best known works by major artists. I think our efforts are usually best directed at improving the many poor biographies and general or thematic articles we have (or don't yet have). Of course if people want to write articles of decent length on individual works that is fine, but without good books the material on individual works is usually not to be found on the web, or the museum's blurb is just parroted. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my 16th/20th century Francis Bacon switch. But I disagree with your contention that we shouldn't create these articles unless they are fully fleshed out: (1) Wikipedia's model is to have lots and lots of "work in progress" articles. Compare that to Britannica's (very) small number of articles that are fully fleshed out. Which of these approaches works better? You seem to be arguing in favor of the latter, but I think the last 10 years have shown that the former is certainly better. Once an article has been created (especially a short one), it's an invitation to others to expand it. (2) Art articles lend themselves particularly well to stubbing. By which I mean, even an extremely short art article (infobox + picture + a one sentence description) is sufficient for someone who simply wants to see the work, find out where it is, who painted it, when, etc.
It isn't realistic to expect articles on even all the best known works by major artists. - I respectfully disagree with you here. I don't think it's going to happen overnight, but I think eventually that's exactly what's going to happen.
I think our efforts are usually best directed at improving the many poor biographies and general or thematic articles we have (or don't yet have). - Certainly we want good biographies, but I don't think that means we should avoid creating articles on individual works. You said you are concerned about "clutter" which I take to mean lots of short art articles with relatively few incoming links. I think this issue can be solved by making greater use of artist-specific templates (ala, Template:Eakins, Template:Courbet, etc). Raul654 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The majority of our articles on individual works are 2-4 lines long, and have not been improved since they were set up in 2006-7. You're better off with a google search for these, and imo they just disappoint the few readers who find them. Johnbod (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Whistler painting of Carlyle is now a stub. JNW (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Returning to the general point, whereas the creation of very short stubs probably worked well for the earlier periods of WP, up to say 2008, I think it is new becoming abundantly clear that the old assumption that if a short stub is put up someone will come along to improve it has broken down, or at least the timeframe has stretched immensely, perhaps unacceptably so. We don't have enogh people, and those we do mostly seem to prefer writing new articles to expanding old ones, with the result that, as far as the visual arts are concerned, the more important an article is, the worse it is likely to be. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Colour bar at top of artist infobox

Contribute at Template_talk:Infobox_artist#Colour_code. Ty 13:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We've got a major disagreement growing as to our ability to determine the infoboxes we use in articles - suggest commentary here:[11]...Modernist (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Henri Matisse

A new editor has been making major changes to images of Matisse paintings, I would appreciate others input; I think they are unacceptable...Modernist (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm neither a new user, nor am I making major changes to images of Matisse paintings (plural). I have only edited this image after it was already edited last year by User:Olpl. Furthermore, you keep on reverting my changes to the article, which I don't understand, since that does not influence the way the painting is portrayed in the article, and you reverted my contribution to the template, which doesn't make sense at all since that would lead to a redirect.
I'm perfectly fine with you reverting my image and I am very sorry if my contribution made matters worse. I won't revert your revert on the image. I will however protest if you revert my contributions to the article again. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, you seem to be right about the colours, I'm sorry (though I think my version was still better than User:Olpl's, so I don't understand why you make such a big deal about it). This is the version on the Hermitage website, shall I upload that full screen version? It has a higher resolution.
Weird thing is though that the site of the Amsterdam Hermitage uses a version similar to mine. But I agree, the State Hermitage version is better. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The color matters a lot to Matisse paintings, please discuss before making any more major changes. Thanks - this version seems accurate full screen...Modernist (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
All's well in the end, thanks...Modernist (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. In the end I uploaded several images from the official Hermitage website--all Hermitage works listed here to be precide, plus Music (1910). I don't know whether these are Matisse's most important works, but anyway, here they are:

  • Blue Pot and Lemon (1897)
    Blue Pot and Lemon (1897)
  • Fruit and Coffeepot (1898)
    Fruit and Coffeepot (1898)
  • Dishes and Fruit (1901)
    Dishes and Fruit (1901)
  • Vase, Bottle and Fruit (1906)
    Vase, Bottle and Fruit (1906)
  • Vase of Sunflowers (1898)
    Vase of Sunflowers (1898)
  • Crockery on a Table (1900)
    Crockery on a Table (1900)
  • Luxembourg Gardens (1901)
    Luxembourg Gardens (1901)
  • View of Collioure (1905)
    View of Collioure (1905)
  • Game of Bowls (1908)
    Game of Bowls (1908)
  • Dance (II) (1910)
    Dance (II) (1910)
  • Music (1910)
    Music (1910)
  • The Conversation (1908-1912)
    The Conversation (1908-1912)

That's it. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Lists of 100 Project

On Tuesday I participated in a Museums and the Web workshop with members of the Wikimedia Foundation and 50 or so global leaders in the museum web community. Here’s a link to the Workshop.

An idea that surfaced from this workshop is the creation of 3 keys lists within Wikipedia about from what and how art is made, and the materials used to conserve-restore it. Here are the 3 lists:

1) Wikipedia:List_of_100_art_materials_every_encyclopedia_should_have

2) Wikipedia:List_of_100_art_techniques_every_English_encyclopedia_should_have

3) Wikipedia:List_of_100_conservation-restoration_materials_every_encyclopedia_should_have

These lists would not only be used to identify the most important 100 topics, they would be used to determine what Wikipedia articles currently exist about them and therefore identify work that needs to be done within Wikipedia to create or improve them. Ideally, there should be a high-quality articles in Wikipedia about each topic.

Clearly these lists could soon grow way beyond 100 items, but we have to start somewhere. I see this as a kind of first step for the community to begin thinking about ways in which we can add good information to Wikipedia that is useful to the cultural sector.

I think the easiest way to get the entries for this list would be to scan some sets of museum collection databases, or somehow assess Art & Architecture Thesaurus Online (AAT) and the Conservation & Art Material Encyclopedia Online (CAMEO) to determine the entries quasi empirically, or at least in a mildly systematic way (anybody have any hot tips on how to do that, or perhaps a big magic wand?). I can't figure out how to make that happen, so it seems it will have to be done by hand.

Also, along the way there will need to be something like consensus as to what is included in these lists (and what’s not).

Thanks,--Richard McCoy (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why these lists are in project space and why they have an arbitrary total/limit of 100. Surely any effort expended should be in mainspace expanding/creating the actual articles. For example we already have List of artistic mediums which regardless of any other considerations makes Wikipedia:List_of_100_art_materials_every_encyclopedia_should_have somewhat redundant. Surely the others should be created as List of art techniques and List of conservation restoration materials. Any collaboration can be done on the talk pages. Nancy talk 15:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated John Vanbrugh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use image rescaling proposal

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Mass_rescale_of_FU_images. and discuss there. Ty 17:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration requests and ideas

Sorry for the extremely late notification, but as I write this I'm at the Museums and the Web conference, meeting with about 40 museum directors, CTOs, etc. We are here to discuss opportunities for collaboration between the museum world and the Wikipedia community. If there are any issues you guys want me to bring up - any particular bailiwicks you want addressed - please respond ASAP and I'll see what I can do for you.
For example, I'm talking with the guy in charge of technology for the Philadelphia Museum of Art. He asked what my 'wishlist' is for my Thomas Eakins works article. I told him I want access to their internal database (according to him, their external website has entries for about 12% of their total collection) and I want to get in touch with someone who has the authority to release pictures for use on Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
It is indeed a bit late in the day! Many concerns are covered at WP:GLAM and its talk page, and the release to Commons of photos, especially of 3D objects not covered by Corel-Bridgeman, is a general issue. Proposals that sometimes emerge, though none has yet happened, for the automated upload of museum database material into articlespace is a concern. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the most knowledgeable editor here but I gather that a big problem is the difficulty of getting imagery that represents artworks (two-dimensional, three-dimensional) that doesn't have potential copyright problems. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Believe me - getting them to agree to large image releases is a very, very high priority, but museums get nervous or suspicious where Wikipedia is concerned. So my question is - what other requests or ideas do you have? We have museum folk here who don't really understand Wikipedia but want to collaborate with us; we have Wikipedia folk here who don't really understand museums but want to collaborate with them. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Or, to phrase my question in a slightly different fashion - what are the museums out there that you guys want to work with, and how do you want to work with them? (Image donations aside). Raul654 (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the question is how to get people interested and willing to work together. To martial the forces and get more people willing to work on matters related to cultural property. --Richard McCoy (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Raul654 — It would be nice to be able to communicate with museum people in contact with works of art. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, for instance, has a Warhol print called Camouflage Self-Portrait. If you look at the Talk page of that article you can see that we had an unresolvable discussion. That discussion would be found here. I wanted to know if the painting was printed over camouflage fabric (commercially available, of course), or if the camouflage pattern was printed onto blank canvas. As a printmaker, as well as a viewer of art, I find that to be an interesting question. But as you can see from the discussion, we pretty much had to leave that question as an unanswerable one. Bus stop (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Koven Smith is here from the Met. I will see if I can track him down before the end of the day. Raul654 (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow up - I talked with Koven before the end of the conference, and he agreed to help. I told him I'd send him a description of the problem, which I did a few hours ago (it took me a week to follow up because I've been traveling). So hopefully he'll be getting back to me (or posting here directly) very soon. Raul654 (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Image page formatting

I tried some headings in File:Ovenden-Emily.jpg. It makes the page look more attractive and less of a general clutter. The size of FU images is something worth specific justification. Ty 01:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO good job, it's a troubling story though, attracted a lot of angry vandalism a while back...Modernist (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Louisa Bertman

I've offered to help a contributor who appears to be writing an autobiography, to no avail [12]. Lots of inappropriate links and some unsourced information, but this looks to be a keeper. Odd thing: it matters little whether you tag an article, nominate it for deletion, or offer assistance, new editors would prefer you leave them alone to do as they wish. If anyone else would like to help out here, great. JNW (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Two more articles could benefit from watchlisting: 1) Sarah Morris, where 12431 (previously Parallax2008[13]) is a SPA, only editing that article and related; 2) Liam Gillick [14]. Ty 12:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of a visual arts editor

Hello, I usually log on as User:Artiquities, an editor Thogo has placed me on global block for one month on the basis of supposedly creating offensive accounts, yet I have not created any offensive accounts. I wonder if this user might have become drawn into an emergent wikidrama. I can only convey to my fellow Visual arts editors that I hope to be back editing at some point. If there is anyone who can aid me in getting unblocked and finding out what Thogo is up to, I would appreciate it. --87.75.6.91 (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Best let Ty deal with this, as he has access to block logs etc. I can't see anything on your en-WP pages. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Johnbod, I am puzzled myself, cannot see where or why you are blocked...Modernist (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It may be a glitch. Something similar happened to me once. It wasn't a global block for a month, but a block imposed on the IP address I was routed through was blocked and I was also blocked when logged in as Freshacconci. It sorted itself out pretty quickly and there's no record of being blocked on my account. freshacconci talktalk 14:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and info. Perhaps it was a glitch as I have just logged in without any message or evidence of the block.--Artiquities (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Thogo to post here to clarify.[15] Ty 19:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You obviously accidentally hit a globally blocked IP address. ;) Sorry for that you have vandals in the same range you are using. If you tell the sysops here on this project your IP(s) they can whitelist them so that global block of these IPs are not in effect anymore (here on this wiki). Best regards, --Thogo (Talk) 08:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

R. R. McIan wants some art history help plus images and we need Fanny

Hi guys. I've just been fixing up R. R. McIan, the Scottish Romantic painter, and taken it about as far as I can. It can't be far off a WP:GA now, but there's a few things to that need more art background than I have. Notably a bit more general art history and ideally examples of his military and domestic art - there's lots of his clansmen on Commons but none of the other stuff. We're also lacking a portrait of him, which must exist somewhere, and a couple of specific facts which would be easily answered by his biography, which I guess would be found in any decent art library?
Also, if anyone's wanting an easy new article (and WP:DYK?) we don't seem to have an article on his wife Fanny McIan, who was good enough in her own right to exhibit at the Royal Academy but is more notable as the Superintendant of one of the first art schools for women, she's an important early figure in the women's rights movement. Le Deluge (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

NAAP, NAAP, NAAP, Infobox attack

...at Talk:Raphael#Infobox_for_Raphael. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hardly an "attack". More an attempt at a reasonable discussion. Astronaut (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 117 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site gives altogether the wrong information

This infobox has now succeeded in crowding out other types of infobox in the lead of nearly all relevant articles, but gives completely the wrong type of information for the general reader, with neither the date of the site, its location within a country, nor any description of what the site consists of being compulsory. Instead the box gives a range of bureaucratic file references to the UNESCO process that are of no interest to anyone but bureaucrats. This information should not be displayed but hidden in a show/hide bar, and the template should only display the basic information that general readers would expect. The articles covered by this template include, by definition, the world's most important architectural & heritage sites, and the current form of template lets the project down badly - see Giza Necropolis for a typical example. Please comment at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Gives altogether the wrong information. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo and famous nude artworks

Anyone experienced in art appreciation is desperately encouraged to participate at a poll determining whether Jimbo has power to overturn community consensus on all projects.

Basically, if you don't know the whole story, VERY briefly (and potentially biased)

  • Jimbo declared a new "no porn" policy
  • He and a small group of editors began deleting hundreds or thousands of images all across the projects.
  • He deleted several VERY notable pieces of 19th century art and then edit warred to keep them deleted. His justification for these sorts of deletions was that "old pornography is still pornography"
  • The community has now voted to remove Jimbo's tools to prevent him from doing it again.

I'm not a bystander, I'm an advocate, so take my words with a grain of salt, double check me, investigate for yourself.

But if you care about the future of art on Wikipedia, you should be reading the following discussion:

Removal of Founder powers

--Alecmconroy (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Pyrography tool

I recently bought a gas operated soldering iron to do my pyrography and it works OK for me. I'm still a novice and cannot find the "real" tool that is made for pyrography.

I'd also like some pointers to websites that offers free art images specially for pyrography. Marius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.8.254.130 (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Court painter category

There seems to be no category link to Court painter. I added it to Uemura Shōen's categories... I hereby propose one be created as there are quite a few and new ones coming in regularly.Paradise coyote (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is rather a vague term, as most famous painters of the right periods worked for courts at some time, although some held salaried jobs for long periods. Her article mentions no court connection that I can see. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Gardner's Art Through the Ages

Some more input is needed on the talk page. There's also a discussion here concerning Art4em. freshacconci talktalk 14:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

British Museum backstage tour

This looks good - I shall be going [[16]] Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Category question

I noticed we don't have a method for easily perusing art and artists from a

by century  —>  by region

vantage point. For instance, today I thought I'd take a look at 19th century American artists, and found there isn't a way to do this very easily. There are categories for {{19th century}} and {{19th century in art}}, and {{American art}} and {{Art by nationality}}, and some coverage in individual articles such as 19th century visual artist and sculptors, etc., but there is no category for the combination. Similarly, if I want to see 17th century art, I can do that, sort of, if I think to look under Baroque painting or sculpture (and eschewing all other 17th century work), but I can't look under English or Indian 17th century art, I have to instead look under each category by county, nationality, or region, and then try to sort out art and artists by date within those categories. In short, it is all rather annoying. Is there a reason it is done this way? If there isn't a compelling reason not to, why not create some categories by century and then by region? Such categories need not be too granular, just enough that it pares the list of returned articles down to a representative group. Thoughts? -- Sctechlaw (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "19th century American artists" would be what WP:OCAT calls a "triple intersection", although that might be acceptable. WP:CFD has rather taken against by-century categories lately, and artists' careers have an inconvenient habit of continuing past the year 00. Plus do you know how many artist articles there are? In general they are categorized by period, movement or style rather than date, which on the whole makes sense I think. But all such categories are very incomplete, & that scheme should be improved before a new one is started. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that over-categorization is to be avoided, and that is what would happen if it were dependent upon individual artists. However, what I'm suggesting is not that granular a categorization scheme — it is very broad, and indeed, it is the way the general public looks for things. So for instance, if someone creates an article about a 10th century Japanese painter, and gave it a category of 10th century art (Japan), it would be fairly easy to find, and a search on the category itself would reveal contemporaries, artists who worked at the same time, which is often what people want to see. In this way, a category scheme like I'm suggesting would not necessarily be dependent upon individual artists or their lifespans. For those artists whose working lives span a century turn, an article author could choose to assign 2 centuries to that artist. Thoughts? -- Sctechlaw (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I do agree our categorization schemes for art are weak, & not good at giving that sort of overview. Much of this is because the categories we have aren't used, especially for works & biographies. At the moment the implicit principle is usually to keep biographies, works and other articles apart, except for pretty narrow categories. Look how few there are in Category:Baroque paintings for example. The "by artist" categories do the job, and illuminated manuscript categories are in good order, but most other categories are not. We already have Category:Centuries in art, and sub-cats by decade & year, which are virtually empty, and rather unrelated to other trees. It is an enormous job just to populate the existing categories, before worrying about new ones. I wouldn't like to see a whole set of new categories set up, and then also stay empty. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Certainly I agree that unused categories aren't too helpful. Do you think the reason they are not used is because article creators don't assign categories to their articles as they should upon creating an article, or because the team (is there one? lol, I'm assuming a lot here) who handles categorization has a backlog, or because of some other reason? Just trying to get up to speed here. -- Sctechlaw (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Both, but there is no team as such. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
So what can I do to help? -- Sctechlaw (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd take any area you're interested in, & see what we have. There are a number of organizational issues that ideally need reaching a consensus on - for example enormous numbers of artists are classified just as "painters" which isn't strictly accurate for many, and leads to duplication - compare Category:Artists by period and Category:Painters by period. But it's probably best to leave these for now. The first thing to do is to poke around & see what categories we actually have already - don't assume these will be linked up with other categories as they should be, as they may not be. Then you can either look through the articles from the categories, or off lists (we have huge lists of American artists), or by searching, and add categories that aren't there. If you think new categories are needed, it might be best to suggest them here first; as you can see I'm a bit paranoid about unused schemes being set up - I see we have Category:17th-century artists with 2 members! But 19th century sculptors, for example, don't have many categories - see Category:Sculptors by period. Some categories would certainly be worthwhile additions. Non-Western art is probably especially badly categorized in most areas, though Category:Chinese painters is in fact mostly categorized by dynasty, and nothing else. Hope that helps, there's certainly plenty to do! Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Performing Wikipedia

Hi,

Please help us with our project:

Performing Wikipedia

Performing Wikipedia invites participants to collaborate on updating the on-line encyclopaedia with materials about performance and live art. A marathon attempt to write the legacy of performance into electronic public space, Performing Wikipedia is at once a mediated collaborative performance, and an intervention which propels the history and representation of live art into this significant online encyclopaedia/resource.

We would really like to tidy up the Live Art article and add several artists who are missing from Wikipedia.

Join in http://twitter.com/PerformingWiki

Lisa Mattocks (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, restored now, but needs a bit of wikification. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Participation invited at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Performing Wikipedia. Ty 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Template move

{{Visual arts}} is now {{WikiProject Visual arts}}. Xeno moved it to standardise it. More to type now. Ty 15:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems the old template will still work, though. Or it did when I just tried it, at least. Lithoderm 05:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
It redirects to the new name. Ty 02:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sam Knox

Could someone have a glance at this artist/photographer article with an eye to notability issues? I've repeatedly mentioned the problem that this really needs demonstration of notability via third-party sources (I raised it at WP:COIN in the hope that it would jog the article creator - who has self-identified as Knox - into providing some). But no-one seems to be taking the hint, and he's off on entirely the wrong track in collecting a portfolio of regional newspaper citations and web pages where his work has appeared). Thoughts? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It does appear to have source, notability, and conflict of interest issues. Perhaps AFD nomination is appropriate. JNW (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Study of citations for Arshile Gorky

Removal of unreferenced names from the list prompted Modernist to give 23 citations and Tyrenius 2 citations in a very short time. Three citations for Arshile Gorky. :

"Arshile Gorky: A Retrospective at Tate Modern, review.

The horrors of Arshile Gorky’s childhood in Armenia paved the way to greatness in America.” In the whole review the one instance mentioning the words “lyrical abstraction” had no relation to the trend to lyrical abstraction in America. (According to Robbins: "the term used in the late sixties" see: Lyrical Abstraction}

”In 1920, through the generosity of a relative, the children reached America, where in due course the exiled painter would draw on imagery culled from memories of his boyhood to forge a new language of lyrical abstraction. It was a long time before he could confront his past, but when he did he lit the way for two generations of American artists.”

The highly respected critic, Richard Dorment states Arshile Gorky’s artistic contribution in the article:

”Gorky was the link between European Surrealism and American Abstract Expressionism.”
’’See Disclaimer
As sources for the profiles, I use the Internet, books, art magazines, and remembered bits from art school and a lifetime of reading and learning about art. Sometimes this results in factual inaccuracies of details as taken from various sources. I apologize for any errors thus present in the profiles, and always try to research from a wide variety of reputable sources to avoid this. (In two of the profiles - Faith Ringgold and Christo and Jeanne-Claude, the artists themselves contacted me with corrections and suggestions.) My strength, I feel, comes from my attempt to convey each artist's aesthetic and expressive intentions, drawing on my own experience as an artist. I have tried to show the significance of the artists' work, based on my own perceptions from many years of art study. Please do not depend on the factual accuracy of these profiles for academic papers and school reports. There are many other sources on the Web and in libraries whose express purpose is historical accuracy of names and dates, such as www.artcyclopedia.com, the Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. These will give you facts; my purpose is to try to explore the intentions of the artists, and the meaning of the artworks.”

Due to the disclaimer this opinion cannot be used as citation from reliable source.

  • Third citation reference 22. ‘’Art Daily’’ retrieved May 24, 2010. artdaily.org is :“the first Art newspaper on the Net. Established in 1996.”

This is a second presentation of citation reference 20:

”First Major Retrospective of Arshile Gorky in Europe for Twenty Years Opens at Tate. …In New York in 1941, Gorky encountered the exiled European Surrealists, whose leader, André Breton, welcomed him as part of their movement. His lyrical abstractions anticipated Abstract Expressionism…”

According to encyclopedia.com (Oxford University Press):

”Lyrical Abstraction. A rather vague term, used differently by different writers, applied to a type of expressive but non-violent abstract painting flourishing particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, chiefly in France; the term seems to have been coined by the French painter Georges Mathieu, who spoke of ‘abstraction lyrique’ in 1947. European critics often use it more or less as a synonym for Art Informel or Tachisme; Americans sometimes see it as an emasculated version of Abstract Expressionism. To some writers the term implies particularly a lush and sumptuous use of colour.”

The tenuous definition of Lyrical Abstraction demands the reliance on indisputable use of the term, Lyrical Abstraction, commencing in America in 1969. Please see:

[17] [18] and [19]

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The importance of reliable citation is critical. To participate is both a privilege and a great responsibility. (Salmon1 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

I have restored Gorky. We follow sources, which quite clearly make the association between lyrical abstraction and Gorky. You are constructing your own argument (i.e. OR) to disagree with sources. ArtDaily is a legitimate source. I have added the extra ArtDaily reference with a footnote which says, ""Lyrical Abstraction ... has been applied at times to the work of Arshile Gorky". If you think the article should go into more detail about his relationship with lyrical abstraction, and perhaps the fact that he died before the term was revived again, then please do so. But it's not something that should be erased from the article. Per your analysis above, I have removed "artist profile".
You say re. Dorment, "In the whole review the one instance mentioning the words 'lyrical abstraction' had no relation to the trend to lyrical abstraction in America." Dorment said:
In 1920, through the generosity of a relative, the children reached America, where in due course the exiled painter would draw on imagery culled from memories of his boyhood to forge a new language of lyrical abstraction. It was a long time before he could confront his past, but when he did he lit the way for two generations of American artists.
Quite clearly it was in America and it was lyrical abstraction, a mode innovated by Gorky, who according to Dorment was a precursor to later trends.
Ty 22:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Since you stated that my above argument is OR I find it necessary to have this discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. The consensus may go along with your activity but in my opinion it is not about winning but about being rule abiding. I do not agree with your reversion of Arshile Gorky based on the grounds that you gave. Salmon1 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)) (Salmon1 (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

(unindent)The earlier discussion regarding this can be found at Talk:Lyrical Abstraction. The question is whether Arshile Gorky should be included in the article on Lyrical Abstraction. Two sources are:

In 1920, through the generosity of a relative, the children reached America, where in due course the exiled painter [Gorky] would draw on imagery culled from memories of his boyhood to forge a new language of lyrical abstraction. It was a long time before he could confront his past, but when he did he lit the way for two generations of American artists.[20] The Daily Telegraph
[John] Seery is an oft-cited prime example of the Lyrical Abstraction movement in New York and Los Angeles—a movement that encompassed work by artists such as Brice Marden, David Reed, and Larry Poons in the late 60s and 70s, also has been applied at times to the work of Arshile Gorky, Richard Diebenkorn and Robert Motherwell, and by definition could feasibly extend to the work of many abstract artists to this day. It’s a painterly, emotional and decidedly non Hard-edge type of abstraction.[21], ArtDaily.

(my underlining) Ty 01:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The above material was copied from Talk:Lyrical Abstraction by Salmon1. Ty 15:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Please read the step-by-step analysis of the three citations provided by you, Tyrenius and or Modernist. I did not construct any argument of my own but rather accurately quoted segments of the article including the one that you have just repeated verbatim. Yet you left out from the article the critical continuation which provides the definition:
"The highly respected critic, Richard Dorment states Arshile Gorky’s artistic contribution in the article:
'Gorky was the link between European Surrealism and American Abstract Expressionism.”

I did not argue just quoted. The citation itself explains why Arshile Gorky should not be included in the list of Lyrical Abstractionist painters. (Salmon1 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

The citation does not explain why Gorky should not be included in the list of Lyrical Abstraction painters. On the contrary it says what he did was "to forge a new language of lyrical abstraction". There is nowhere better to record the forging of a new language of lyrical abstraction than in an article on lyrical abstraction. The fact that he was "the link between European Surrealism and American Abstract Expressionism" means that he should also be included in articles on European Surrealism and American Abstract Expressionism. These categories often overlap and artist often have to be included in more than one. I don't see the problem. Ty 23:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Gorky and James Brooks should be re-included, probably de Kooning as well...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I have given refs for De Kooning at Talk:Lyrical_Abstraction#De_Kooning. Ty 23:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Since there are discussions on other painters I moved the discussion outside of Arshile Gorky to Discussion of Lyrical Abstraction. There are other statements relating to the other artists' deletion already in place there. (Salmon1 (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

NPOV vs. changing of title to facilitate IMHO or IMO

After not being referenced for an extended period of time the following artists were removed from the article by Salmon1:

Removal of unreferenced names from the list prompted Modernist to give 23 citations and Tyrenius 2 citations in a very short time. (see: Edit History of Lyrical abstraction. There was a challenge to the listing of Arshile Gorky as a Lyrical Abstractionist painter, by Salmon1. (See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts Study of citations for Arshile Gorky Lyrical Abstractionist painter.) Arshile Gorky was deleted from the List by Salmon1 on the basis of luck of reliable reference to be represented in the list of Lyrical Abstractionist Painters.

Tyrenius, editor and administrator restored Arshile Gorky into the list but did not explain why did at the same time changed the title of the list from

’’Lyrical Abstractionist Painters’’

to:

’’Painters’’

Revision as of 22:50, 28 May 2010 edit) (undo) Tyrenius Talk | contribs) (restore Gorky – see talk page)

According to Wikipedia:Administrators

”Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers; they are not acting as employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved.”

Subsequently most of the questioned artists were reverted by Modernists and or Tyrenius.

The legitimacy of certain artists’ representation in the list: :”Lyrical Abstractionist Painters” raised NPOV. Modernist and or Tyrenius enforced the legitimacy of the questioned artists in the list by replacing the defining title of the list: : ’’Lyrical Abstractionist Painters’’ with the title: :”Painters.” The luck of reliable references was substituted by a less restrictive title. Using IMHO or IMO in wikipedia is against the rules.

No original research: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." (Salmon1 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
I have not used any admin tools or implied I would, so that point is completely irrelevant. I said I would report you for edit warring, if you continued to revert.[22] Any editor can do this. You removed unreferenced material. It was referenced as you requested, and then reinstated. Thank you for your compliment that this was done "in a very short time". I made no edit to the article on "22:50, 28 May 2010 edit) (undo) Tyrenius Talk | contribs) (restore Gorky – see talk page)". It was on 26 May.[23] Please supply diffs in future.
The section title was changed per WP:MOSHEAD: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article ... headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated"; i.e. if the article is called "Lyrical Abstraction", you don't repeat "Lyrical Abstraction" in section headings. I hope this clears up the problems.
Ty 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for highlighting the issue of section headings. I have changed others accordingly to meet the stipulation in WP:MOSHEAD.[24] Ty 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


[[NPOV}} vs. changing of title to facilitate IMHO or IMO is the problem. The luck of references from reliable sources stands against the major rule of Wikipedia, NPOV. (See: [25]) According to the rules of Wikipedia:
”Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves….Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research....Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.”
There are well referenced lists of artists:
  • French artists (1945 - 1956)
  • Artists in Paris (1945–1956) and beyond
  • Exhibition participants
At the end of the article you created a list: Painters with the explanation:
”This is a list of artists, whose work or a period or significant aspects of it, has been seen as lyrical abstraction.”
The tenuous definition of Lyrical Abstraction demands the reliance on indisputable references. Using IMHO or IMO in wikipedia is against the rules.
"No original research: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."
(Salmon1 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
I'm not seeing the issue here. An art critic who writes for Daily Telegraph and the New York Review of Books is not considered a reliable source? Kafka Liz (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The issue is: the references provided for the listing of the individual artists as Lyrical Abstractionist Painters by Modernist and or Tyrenius.
See: [26]
At the end of the article, Lyrical Abstraction, Modernist and or Tyrenius created a list:
"Painters" with the explanation:
"This is a list of artists, whose work or a period or significant aspects of it, has been seen as lyrical abstraction.”
Please see the challenge of the references provided for each of the painters in the discussion segment of the article See [27]
According to the rules of Wikipedia:
"Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research....Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.”
It is not a question of consensus. Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia ultimately adheres to its principal rules. (Salmon1 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

You have linked to WP:NOR, which is a policy that says, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." (my underlining) We have a text from Richard Dorment, the art critic of The Daily Telegraph, a mainstream newspaper, which says what Gorky did was "to forge a new language of lyrical abstraction". As you have quoted above, we should not make "any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data". The published data says, "lyrical abstraction", so therefore we say "lyrical abstraction" also. You wish to make a new interpretation and analysis of this by saying that when Dorment says, "lyrical abstraction", this does not mean "lyrical abstraction" at all, which is a blatant contravention of WP:NOR. Ty 02:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The British Museum wants to give you money and help you write articles!

Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend the Backstage Pass event at the British Museum. Getting up close and personal with Durer woodblocks and Rembrandt's original copper plates was..very cool.:-) It was part of a wider project of engagement with Wikipedia (see WP:GLAM/BM) that has seen them take on a temporary Wikipedian In Residence, User:Witty lama. They see Wikipedia as sharing many of their aims, and they want to encourage involvement by Wikipedians with the museum, and vice versa. They have even offered 5 prizes of £100 at the BM shop for featured articles on BM topics - in any language.
Most Wikipedians probably don't know that the BM has curators dedicated to answering phone/email questions about their specialist areas, and most of their department libraries welcome visitors doing bona fide research - and they now seem to recognise that editing Wikipedia articles, especially about items in the BM's collections, counts for those purposes. I know that the first question most people will have is "Can we have images of all their stuff?" and I'd just ask people to be patient on that front. Let's just say that the museum are well aware of our hopes there, there are staff who see advantages to the museum in doing something, and it's being discussed at the highest level. On the other hand it's a very complex area that needs to be handled diplomatically. Literally in some cases - foreign governments can get very touchy about the dissemination of images of artifacts relating to their cultural history, and the museum needs to respect those concerns.
So for the moment the focus is on using the BM's huge resources of books, expertise etc to improve article content, and hopefully that will include articles being peer-reviewed by BM staff. Some of them are quite nervous about doing stuff on Wikipedia, a mixture of fear of professional ridicule, nervousness about the technical aspects, stories of rapid reverts of good-faith edits and just general culture shock - it's a very different world to the one they come from. So I'd ask everyone to look after any BM people that you see around the place, Wikipedia can gain a lot from their involvement and it would be a shame if they're discouraged for any reason. As I mentioned above, WP:GLAM/BM is the clearing house for the BM's involvement with Wikipedia, and I suggest that further questions/comments are directed there. Le Deluge (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have sent out a note to Museum-l about this thread and a link to this NYtimes article. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia Museum of Art collaboration

Some people at the Philadelphia Museum of Art saw this NY Times article and want to start a similar collaborative project with Wikipedians. I'll probably be going up there in the next couple weeks to discuss it. It would be helpful for me to know (A) Which folks here are interested in writing about PMA topics, and (B) which folks here are local and would be interested in physically going there, to meet with curators and/or attend a back-stage tour, if they should put one on? Raul654 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:GLAM is the place to go with this, apart from here and the ? Philly Wikiproject of course. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Newbie seeking help with Article in Sandbox-Stage

Say, could any of you art-savvy people take the time and look at my article I already published on the German Wikipedia and would like to put up in English: Petrus Wandrey. It will be full of terrible Germanisms which I hope to have diminished. Plus am not so sure about policies here. It awaits publication in my sandbox and it would be grand if you could look it over. My faithful mentor Draeco said he might not be up to the task as he doesn't specialize in arts. Thanks in advance. --Kst32 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at Rob Ring?

I've nominated it for speedy delete. An IP (I suspect this is the same editor as the article creator) has added a huge amount of info, most of which doesn't help at all. There doesn't appear to be anything which establishes notability. However, I'm hesitating to edit it down since I don't want to appear too bitey. If someone else feels that speedy deleting isn't warranted, that's fine. I'm not certain that notability can be established however. I am somewhat familiar with the artist (Canada is a small big country), but I don't know him personally. I am worried however that I may be too close professionally (6 degrees of Freshacconci?). Any help would be appreciated. freshacconci talktalk 02:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it's long on unsourced descriptions of individual works, very short on reliable sources (someone has just mercifully removed the filler). It makes a kind-of claim to notability, so if not speedy, AFD may be an appropriate avenue. JNW (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
As a stub it might or might not survive the AfD process. I see a little notability, mostly just the connections to the CAFKA organization...Modernist (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
And that's currently a shaky connection, too, given the shape of the CAFKA article, which is now a largely unsourced advertisement. JNW (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV; WP:NOR and [28]

The title of the article: Lyrical Abstractiion. The trend, American Lyrical Abstraction, [29] is illustrated with the painting: [Ronnie Landfield]], For William Blake 1968,

The article provides groups of well-referenced lists of artists:

  • French artists (1945 - 1956)
  • Artists in Paris (1945–1956) and beyond
  • Exhibition participants of Lyrical Abstraction at the Whitney Museum of American Art, 1971

At the end of the article Modernist and/or Tyrenius created a list: [30] with the subtitle:

”This is a list of artists, whose work or a period or significant aspects of it, has been seen as lyrical abstraction."

The subtitle follows the listing of 87 artists.

The tenuous definition of Lyrical Abstraction demands the reliance on indisputable references. Using WP:ORIGINAL in wikipedia is against the rules.
"No original research: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

The subtitle of the list consists of the words: This is a list of artists, whose work or a period or significant aspects of it…..

The list of painters calls for synthesis of published data (period or significant aspect of it). Although In the article's discussion, [31] some of the cytations have been disputed the premise of the list itself is in dispute and should be deleted. (Salmon1 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Since this segment of the discussion is closely related to the article, Lyrical Abstraction, I am attaching the copy of this segment to the article's discussion. (Salmon1 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
First of all you removed a lot of artists from this list on the basis that there were not references provided to validate that they had painted in a way that was described as lyrical abstraction. These references were provided and the artists reinstated. You have raised this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts and questioned the validity of the references. So far no one has supported your position.[32] You are now saying that painters whose work (in whole or part) has been described as lyrical abstraction cannot be listed in the lyrical abstraction article under a heading of painters. This is not WP:SYNTH, as no original argument has been advanced. The sources have been provided to say they have painted in the mode of lyrical abstraction and they are simply listed as such.
Your continual advocacy against these lyrical abstraction painters has become the pushing of a POV and Tendentious editing.
I suggest also that you keep the convesation in one venue, namely Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts or Talk:Lyrical Abstraction, instead of copying everything on both pages.
(My post above is duplicate of that at Talk:Lyrical Abstraction Ty 18:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The copying in both pages is necessitated by your statement:

”Your continual advocacy against these lyrical abstraction painters has become the pushing of a POV and Tendentious editing.”

  • Providing proofs in a dispute is following the rules of Wikipedia. It is not

    “the pushing of a POV and Tendentious editing.”

  • Proof of WP:ORIGINAL does not require consensus. Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia ultimately adheres to its principal rules.
Modernist and/or Tyrenius created a list: [33] with the subtitle:

”This is a list of artists, whose work or a period or significant aspects of it, has been seen as lyrical abstraction."

The subtitle follows the listing of 87 artists. The first artists listed:
  • Lyrical Abstraction, Ref.26: Doment Richard: Arshile Gorky: A Retrospective at Tate Modern, review 8 Febr. 2010:

“In 1920, through the generosity of a relative, the children reached America, where in due course the exiled painter would draw on imagery culled from memories of his boyhood to forge a new language of lyrical abstraction.”

Later on the exhibition review he writes:

”Gorky was the link between European Surrealism and American Abstract Expressionism. The passion, enigma and autobiographical dimension of his work would find their way into the art of Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, and, above all, Cy Twombly.”

  • Ref.27: Art Daily: First Major Retrospective of Arshile Gorky in Europe for Twenty Years Opens at Tate: May 24 2010 No named reviewer.

“His lyrical abstractions anticipated Abstract Expressionism, which emerged in 1940s New York amongst a circle of artists who valued spontaneity of expression and individuality, including Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko. Gorky’s assimilation of European and American influences resulted in a distinctive synthesis of artistic cultures. Paralleling the Surrealists’ idea of automatism – the free flowing release of the hand from conscious control of the mind - he forged an entirely new type of abstract painting.”

Ref.28:artdaily.org: L.A. Art Collector Caps Two Year Pursuit of Artist with Exhibition of New Work:

“Two years ago, long before opening his Camden Drive gallery space in Beverly Hills, art collector Herair Garboushian became acquainted and enamored with artist John Seery’s work of the early 1970s………Seery is an oft-cited prime example of the Lyrical Abstraction movement in New York and Los Angeles—a movement that encompassed work by artists such as Brice Marden, David Reed, and Larry Poons in the late 60s and 70s, also has been applied at times to the work of Arshile Gorky, Richard Diebenkorn and Robert Motherwell, and by definition could feasibly extend to the work of many abstract artists to this day. It’s a painterly, emotional and decidedly non Hard-edge type of abstraction.”

The above promotional, advertising article by collector/dealer for John Seery on the website, artdaily.org is an exact duplicate of the advertizing article by the same gallery on the website, visualartsource.com. ‘’Garboushian Gallery-John Seery Exhibition’’ It repeats the same above statement:

”Two years ago, long before opening my Camden Drive gallery space in Beverly Hills, I became acquainted and enamored with artist John Seery's work of the early 1970s….Seery is an oft-cited prime example of the Lyrical Abstraction movement in New York and Los Angeles-a movement that encompassed work by artists such as Brice Marden, David Reed, and Larry Poons in the late 60s and 70s, also has been applied at times to the work of Arshile Gorky, Richard Diebenkorn and Robert Motherwell, and by definition could feasibly extend to the work of many abstract artists to this day. It's a painterly, emotional and decidedly non Hard-edge type of abstraction….”

The repeat advertising segments on John Seery substantiate that “Reference:28” cannot serve as reliable source for reference to justify Arshile Gorky as an American Lyrical Abstractionist Painter.
  • Ref.29: Tate.org.uk. Press Office: Press Releases: Arshile Gorky: A Retrospective February, 9. 2010.
About the exhibition it states:

”Celebrating one of the most powerful and poetic American artists of his generation, Arshile Gorky: A Retrospective examines the extraordinary contribution of this seminal figure in Abstract Expressionism.......His lyrical abstractions anticipated Abstract Expressionism, which emerged in 1940s New York amongst a circle of artists who valued spontaneity of expression and individuality, including Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko,”

If the list intend to further substantiate the article, [35]

American Lyrical Abstraction is an art movement that emerged in New York City, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and then Toronto and London during the 1960s - 1970s, then referencing of Arshile Gorky relies entirely on the synthesis of published data which is WP:ORIGINAL in wikipedia is against the rules.

  • Ref.30: Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum: Gesture, Scrape, Combine, Calculate: Postwar Abstraction from the Permanent Collection

”This exhibition showcases works of large-scale postwar abstraction from the Kemper Art Museum’s permanent collection. The selection presents a cross-section of proliferating strategies and approaches to abstract painting and sculpture as practiced by artists working across the United States and in Europe from the immediate postwar years to the late 1970s. Highlights include examples of gestural and lyrical abstraction, color-field painting, hard-edge abstraction, and assemblage by artists such as Alberto Burri, Gene Davis, Roberto Matta, Arshile Gorky, Allan McCollum, Jules Olitski, Antoni Tàpies, and Anne Truitt.”

The reference does not specifically states that Arshile Gorky was a Lyrical Abstractionist Painter.
Discussion:
  • Arshile Gorky: (born Arshile Gorky; April 15, 1904 – July 21, 1948) in no place in the press releases is defined as a Lyrical Abstractionist painter. In 1971, John I. H. Baur in the

    ”Forword”

    of the Whitney Museum exhibition[1]wrote the following disclaimer:

”To be given an entire exhibition surveying a current trend in American art at a single blow is an experience unusual to the verge of bizarre………Mr. Aldrich defines the trend of Lyrical Abstraction……Suffice it to say that that they are the reflection of the founder’s (Mr. Larry Aldrich founder of the Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art) taste, his unorthodox methods, his unconcern with established reputations and above all his responsive and receptive eye.”

According to encyclopedia.com (Oxford University Press):

”Lyrical Abstraction. A rather vague term, used differently by different writers, applied to a type of expressive but non-violent abstract painting flourishing particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, chiefly in France; the term seems to have been coined by the French painter Georges Mathieu, who spoke of ‘abstraction lyrique’ in 1947. European critics often use it more or less as a synonym for Art Informel or Tachisme; Americans sometimes see it as an emasculated version of Abstract Expressionism. To some writers the term implies particularly a lush and sumptuous use of colour.”

The tenuous definition of Lyrical Abstraction demands the reliance on indisputable use of the term, Lyrical Abstraction, commencing in America in 1969. Please see: [36] [37]
Arshile Gorky died in 1948 before American abstract expressionism and latter in 1969 Lyrical Abstraction emerged in the US. In 1951, Lloyd Goodrich, in “Homage to Gorky,” a talk delivered on February 16, 1951, as part of a symposium on Gorky at the Painter’s Club, New York stated:[2] stated:

”Even when he was trying to paint a Picasso or a Braque, the result was pure Gorky.”

There are number of citations asides from Arshile Gorky for different artists in the list: [38] that need to be analyzed as to their correct listing as Lyrical Abstractionist Painters. (Salmon1 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Kindly don't post duplicate material in two places at the same time. It confuses things and wastes editors' time. The proper place for this is Talk:Lyrical Abstraction where I have replied. Ty 03:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lyrical Abstraction : a gift of the Larry Aldrich Foundation.
  2. ^ American Abstract Expressionism of the 1950s An Illustrated Survey, (New York School Press, 2003.) ISBN 0-9677994-1-4. p. 14
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Archive_9&oldid=1086383699"