Talk:List of contemporary artists

High sale price

I support the addition of high sale prices as part of the criteria at the top of the page, but would like to remove the link to artfacts.net, because inclusion therein does not in itself imply that a high price has been reached. I also think that "have been suggested as alternate criterion for inclusion to this list" should go as well, because it refers to the talkpage discussion. No need to draw attention to the feet peddling furiously beneath the swan.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the last sentence of the existing criterium is a good temporarily solution. On the long run we have to come to a well defined description.

Hdboeck (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

to Ethicoaestheticist: I don't think a list is used to add behind a name that much information. One can use this talkpage to add arguments if one is convinced an artists should be on the list. Hdboeck (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to come up with a better line. How's this?:

"Artists whose contemporary works have been purchased at auction prices of $10,000 or higher have also been considered."

I also think the link to Artfacts.net should be moved to a footnote.

What say yall?

And as far as all the info after each artist's name. Maybe we could instead have a footnote next to each name...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

$10,000 isn't very high. The top 500 artists by yearly sales listed in the Artprice annual report (link above) have individual sale prices approaching or exceeding $1,000,000. The top 100 hammer prices start at just under $4,000,000.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear on your point, Ethicoaestheticist: those two lists, top 500 artists by yearly sales and top 100 hammer prices, are those all necessarily contemporary artists or might some of them be artists from long gone generations?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's all artists dead or alive, but includes contemporary artists like Jeff Wall, Elizabeth Peyton and Jenny Saville as well as Koons and Hirst. If there's a list of the top 500 contemporary artists ranked by sale price I'd want to use that instead. My primary point is that $10,000 isn't a relatively high sale price.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am following the market for years. 10.000 dollars for contemporary work is quite a high auction price (I am not talking about gallery prices). Don’t forget that this is an encyclopedia. We have to create a full and complete list of significant artists who are influencing the identity of contemporary art everywhere in the world. It should not be an exlusive list. If people are prepared to pay 10.000 dollars for smaller work we are talking about an artist who at least on a national level is quite respected. Hdboeck (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The list is exclusive, not a list of all notable contemporary artists. The criteria (until consensus dictates their removal altogether) need to pitched at about the same level. Jenny Saville and Elizabeth Peyton have participated in the Venice Biennale. Xiang Jing and Banksy haven't, but their inclusion in the top 500 list confirms that in sale terms they are of equivalent standing. A wider range of artists can be included without undermining the existing criteria.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand about the exclusivity of this list. Right now in human consciousness we can easily tell the difference between someone who makes no money and someone who makes millions of dollars, but we haven't all the confident knowledge to decide and declare whose work is instilled with wide and long-lasting relevance and intellectual or emotional enlightenment, and whose work is simply there, half forced, and half copied, all for some selfish reason or other.

With that said, what would everyone think if we would include artists who have at least one work that has sold for 100,000 dollars? Do I hear a hundred thousand? Anyone? Anyone?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, an encyclopedical list can never be exclusive. In a encyclopedia we have to bring together all relevant knowledge about a subject. Therefor, we have to creat a full and complete list of significant artists who influencing the identity of contemporary art all around the world. This doesn’t mean that we have to put every notable artists on our list. But if people are prepared to pay at an auction 10.000 dollars for a small piece the artist can be regarded as quite important at least on a national level. If a work is worth 100.000’s of dollars it is a result of a speculative investment or a prestigious hunt of wealthy collectors. Those artists who can sell their work like that belong to the happy few. In that case the parameter would at least be too narrow. We have make it wider with at the end the result that as much as important artists can participate our list. Hdeboeck (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! I like your reasoning. Well said! I agree that $10,000 is a good amount to list as a criterion by which to admit inclusion. Ethicoaestheticist? What say you? Anybody else have something to add?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Tha fact that high sale prices are the result of speculation is an argument for leaving them out altogether. However, as I've said above, I broadly agree that high sale prices can be used as a criterion. I would prefer a general statement to that effect, without a specific value - and I would also prefer sources describing a sale price as high. But on any definition of high $10,000 just ain't it. $1,000,000? Maybe. $100,000? Perhaps.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought: Maybe we are getting too involved in determining what "good" art is. Maybe it would be simpler if we returned to the criteria of notability listed at WP:ARTIST:

• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
• The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
• The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
• The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

If we list these original criteria at the top of the article, then, anyone who wants to list an artist must cite how the proposed artist meets the criteria, which seems more manageable than the labor being on us to resolve a subjective debate. Additionally, we will be well within Wikipedia's guidelines, and well away from getting too involved for anyone's benefit.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

to Abie the Fish Peddler

I forgot to congratulate you for the good work. Clearly the work of an open mind...

My best wishes for 2010 to all who participated this discussion.

Hdeboeck (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, Hdeboeck! I'm glad you like the work. It was prompted by the discussions with you and Ethicoaestheticist. I don't think I've ever thought so strenuously about contemporary artists before! Yes, and best wishes from me as well. :-) --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Criteria

These criteria from WP:ARTIST are for creating a Wikipedia article in the first place, which means that ANY artist whose work spans 1970-present day and does have a Wikipedia article is eligible to be on this list, otherwise they would not have a Wikipedia article to begin with!!!

Yet, I still see people deleting artists left and right... today there were dozen or so deletions by by 85.179.77.136

So, now the question is how do you reconcile this?

If you delete artists from this list, then you should also be deleting their Wikipedia article, as they also do not meet the criteria for an article either.

or

If the artist does have a Wikipedia article, and their work is 1970-present, they should, by default be included in this list.

-z

--Zumbooruk2 (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone might fail WP:ARTIST and pass WP:GNG, thus enabling an article. However, I do agree there should be a list which includes all contemporary artists, maybe List of living artists. Ty 21:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that this is really bugging me.

I really do think that you guys got way "too involved in determining what 'good' art is"...

None of the other lists of painters/artists seem so "exclusive".

As long as the artist meets criteria in the title of the list, they are included.

Period.

No "good" art, no "bad" art, no "high sale price", etc.

Can anyone explain why this list should be so exclusive, and policed with such vigilantism and zeal?

If you want a "good" artist list, please change this list to a "List of good contemporary artists"

If you want a "high priced" artist list, change this list to a "List of high priced contemporary artists"

And police these new lists with as much zeal as you wish...

But let the rest of us create a new "List of contemporary artists" which will welcome any and all contemporary artists!

Truly, me thinks that this list should just be deleted and replaced by the Category:Contemporary Artists

-z

--Zumbooruk2 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you make good points, and the name has created an anomaly. However, lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, but concurrent alternatives for greater reader choice. Ty 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If a living artist meets WP:ARTIST and has an article in Wikipedia there is no reason to leave him or her out from the List of contemporary artists. There are artists who are in the Category: Contemporary artists where listed in the list of Contemporary painters as well as in the List of contemporary artists. The two lists are redundant alternatives and results in more exposure for the individuals who are aware of the :”anomaly”. Stick with the rules of Wikipedia and the problem at hand. Encyclopedia has rules and does not exercise judgment. Judgment is made by history and not by wishful thinking or deciding on who or what is good or bad. (Salmon1 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

List of contemporary artists and List of contemporary painters are not obviously redundant, though this could be discussed. I suggest starting a new section if you wish to do this. We actually want to give more "exposure" to articles in the sense of making them more easily accessible to readers seeking that material, so if the two lists do that, then they are a good thing. Ty 06:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I now note there is no List of contemporary painters, so I presume you mean Category:Contemporary painters. You might like to note in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates that categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, but complementary, so there is no redundancy here, as you suggest. Ty 06:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe you meant List of painters by name. Ty 06:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If an artist has a Wikipedia article, and if the artist's body of work is between 1970-persent, they should be on this list.

No judgement, no exposure, no "anomaly".

They are an artist, they are contemporary, they belong on this list.

Period.

-z

--Zumbooruk2 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You just made a clear and :"succinct" explanation of my above statement. Thank you for that. (Salmon1 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

What is unacceptable is the bad faith accusation you have made about other editors without any justification, particularly as your main interest in wikipedia[1] seems to be, having created the article on Rhea Carmi, then adding her to as many lists as possible, even creating Category:Mixed-media artists, the current sole occupant of which is Rhea Carmi. Would you by any chance have in mind adding her to this list? However, regardless of that, you have in your previous post raised some valid points to be answered. Ty 05:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood did not mean to accused anyone WP:AOBF, however I am genuinely interested to know why is this list so different from most other lists and so zealously policed...

Yes, I am mainly editing Rhea Carmi, I am a friend of the family, but I do not have financial interest (not an agent/gallery/etc), so since I have first hand knowledge, I feel that I can make valid contributions. But I also attempt to fix/improve anything I stumble across. I am stickler for consistency and love to nitpick... so when I see something that is inconsistent and/or missing, I'll fix it (for example, I fixed bunch of lists that were alphabetized under "L" for "List of" instead of the actual name of the list).

Yes, I've addedd Rhea Carmi to a lot of lists and categories, even creating some new categories when I felt that they were missing. I did not see anything wrong with that, as Ty said the same: "We actually want to give more "exposure" to articles in the sense of making them more easily accessible to readers seeking that material", which again raises the question, why aren't all contemporary artists on this list???

And yes, she probably could be added to this list (But I was afraid to do it after reading the discussion...). So maybe not now, but in the near future, after few more exhibits and sales. Her work has already sold for $40K+, which is above the discussed $10K, it was displayed in museums (minor ones so far), and she is getting a lot of recognition/interest recently. -z --Zumbooruk2 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I repositioned my response. Tyrenius please do not change the intent of my response by moving it after your statement. I have no knowledge of what you are writing to Zumbooruk2 (talk) about. As to stick to [[NPOV] which is the most important rule in Wikipedia is advisable for everyone. (Salmon1 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

Look at the version you changed.[2] My statement is indented further than yours, which shows that yours was not a response to me, but a response to a higher up post. This is perfectly normal. The version you have now created[3] indents my post below yours and makes it look as though I am responding to your post and saying to you, "What is unacceptable is the bad faith accusation you have made about other editors without any justification." If you think that should be said to you, then I guess leave it there, but it was actually intended to be said to Zumbooruk2. Ty 18:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tyrenius we were discussing NPOV and the importance of listing artists in multiple lists when the artists have articles in the Wikipedia. :"..to give more 'exposure' to articles in the sense of making them more easily accessible to readers seeking that material." This has been getting on the way just at this moment by Modernist. I wonder whether you could help? The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an important figure in literature I wonder whether you know if there is a painting relating to that? (Salmon1 (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

Are you suggesting this list does not follow NPOV in some way? If so, what is the problem with it? Do you mean the way it is defined or the way it is being edited in relation to that definition or what? I'm afraid I don't know of a painting of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. You might be better of posting at the talk page of that article to discuss with editors there, if you want to add an image to it. It's not relevant to this page. Ty 22:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent removal of artists

Some artists have been removed in a recent sweep by an IP address. Mostly I agree, but think the following should be returned:

• Annika Larsson Participated in the Venice Biennale
• Rita Ackermann Participated in the Whitney
• Peter Richards (artist) Venice
• Christian Holstad Work in museum collections

--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have restored all the recent IP deletions, considering the above objections and pending agreement here...Modernist (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lists of names

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)