Talk:Abstract expressionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


1 2 3 4 5 6

Royal Statistical Society - unreliable source?[edit]

User Modernist had deleted the link to an article from Royal Statistical Society magazine, calling it an unreliable source

So what is reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Its also spam...Modernist (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What is spam? Any scholarly article which dissagrees with your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually your website and blog is spam...Modernist (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not my website, but belongs to Royal Statistical Society. In addition it is not a blog, but a magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

They have too many advertisements and pleas for comments - blog like, and ads for subscribers, but most importantly your article is garbage - its about chimps, elephants, and other animals and kids who paint like the abstract expressionists - oh wow! Some people (67%) even think that the major abstract expressionists are better than the chimps and the elephants - WOW!!!!...Modernist (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The only valid objection to linking a blog is that anyone can post anything he likes in his blog. And this is an edited magazine. The objection that articles allow comments and that this somehow makes it a blog can not be taken seriously. Regarding ads - almost all popular websites have them. And those sites already linked in the Wikipedia article do have ads. I picked two at random: Ref. 17 has Google ads, Ref. 19 advertises exhibition, which asks £10 for admission.

The article that I linked is discussed widely in the media (see, for example, ) and therefore meets Wikipedia criteria for importance. So far you did not offer any logical objections to its conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of repetition in this article (i.e. mentioning several times that some think Abstract Expressionism was "nihilistic.") To say that deKooning's Women paintings were "grotesque" is subjective and judgmental, and not consistent with the artist's vision of that body of work. This may have been the opinion of some critics, however as it is written in this article, the description is not attributed to a specific critic, making it sound like a general comment to be taken as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravesadam (talkcontribs) 05:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


"As an example, in 1958, Mark Tobey "became the first American painter since Whistler (1895) to win top prize at the Venice Biennale. New York's two leading art magazines were not interested. Arts mentioned the historic event only in a news column and ARTnews (Managing editor: Thomas B. Hess) ignored it completely. The New York Times and Life printed feature articles."[9]"

Footnote 9 is not specified with a page number and in my opinion is incorrect. I read the whole catalogue and could not find the quotation by Seitz! Who made this common or where is the quotation orginally from?

ASH257 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My reverted edits[edit]

User Modernist has reverted several of my edits and warned me for "verging on vandalism".

First of all, I tried to address a complaint that was raised even on this talk page: "There is a lot of repetition in this article (i.e. mentioning several times that some think Abstract Expressionism was "nihilistic.")" The phrase "Additionally, it has an image of being rebellious, anarchic, highly idiosyncratic and, some feel, nihilistic." was/is in the article three times - I have kept only in the first instance, second paragraph. Also, there was another repetition that I removed, containing the phrase "Pollock's energetic action paintings, with their "busy" feel, are different both technically and aesthetically..." - in the second instance, it continued with a few phrases on de Kooning that were not in the first instance, so I merged them where they belong. My changes were reverted (Modernist said that he didn't understood what was the subject of my edit).

Second - there is a list of "major artists" and one of "other artists". I have split the first list in two parts - and why? "Significant artists whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism:" is a very arguable phrase for a list that contains very many artists (almost by definition, an art movement can only have a few "major artists", a few "peaks"), list in which I have found many artists who are too little-known and loosely associated with the movement to "define" it, as well as one artist that is not at all associated with abstract expressionism (Kinetic artist Alexander Calder). So I have made a smaller sub-section with a few significant artists - maybe one or two might be considered arguable (like James Brooks, though he did contributed to action painting alongside Pollock, who lived in the same area with him), but otherwise most of them did trigger some influence (like Helen Frankenthaler). Second big list is with "Significant artists whose mature work relates to American Abstract Expressionism:". I have moved Jean Paul Riopelle from the first list to this one, as French and Francophone abstract expressionism is referred to as "tachisme" or "art informel". And yes, I have noted that those artists are related to American Abstract Expressionism because they either are European AbEx painters or American painters of related art movements (Post-painterly Abstraction, Pop Art, etc.) who were derived from AbEx. User Modernist has reverted these changes as well and written: "Your edits ruined a perfectly good list", which I find subjective. Please consider my suggestions, as I didn't want to make "vandalism" and simply wanted to improve this page. There are many other suggestions that I would have, but I will first obtain consensus on them here. YigruZeltil (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Every change you made was a mess - I suggest that you make no further changes until you learn how...Modernist (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
To sub divide the first list into first generation, second generation, most important, least significant, most press, highest prices doesn't cut it, too subjective. The list is fine as is. The second list is far more eclectic; has tangential figures like Stella who comes later and Olitski etc. is more open to inclusion...Modernist (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I still don't think "the list is fine as is". Sure, they may not be an "objective" criteria for most important or least significant, but at least I think words like "significant" and "major" should be removed. I disagree with anyone thinking that someone like Robert de Niro Sr. (who is hardly abstract, being even more figurative than de Kooning, who at least has done abstract paintings in his later career) or even Alma Thomas helped define abstract expressionism.YigruZeltil (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, I still think the phrase "Additionally, it has an image of being rebellious, anarchic, highly idiosyncratic and, some feel, nihilistic" should not be repeated three times in this article. (Same goes for "Pollock's energetic action paintings...")YigruZeltil (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Alma Thomas, de Niro and some of the other lesser known abstract expressionists are important and correct inclusions - the period accomodated all kinds of painters - some of whom were barely known - like Alma Thomas, Albert Kotin, and others, but were still part of the major abstract expressionist movement; just as Robert de Niro Sr., Elaine de Kooning, Robert Goodnough, Grace Hartigan and others who also incorporated imagery into their paintings were also. Riopelle had an enormous impact on Joan Mitchell, Sam Francis, Norman Bluhm, Michael Goldberg and the NY art world in general which is why he is on that list as well. I removed one of the phrases you objected to...Modernist (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Mitchell was Riopelle's wife and the others you mentioned were his friends. I don't deny that Alma Thomas or Robert Goodnough do have some value in spite of being lesser known or critically acclaimed, but I still hold the belief that them or Robert de Niro Sr., for that matter, can't be as important as Rothko or Pollock... but, then again, one can hardly come with real arguments (besides something like "number of Google hits", which tends to be irrelevant in most cases).YigruZeltil (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
That's why the long list. The most famous, and the most sought after are for the most part included with images. No question that at this point Gorky, Rothko, Newman, Still, Pollock, de Kooning, Kline, Motherwell, Guston, Hofmann, Gottlieb and Tobey, Brooks, Marca Relli, Tworkov, Tomlin, Reinhardt, Pousette Dart, Baziotes and Stamos were the core of the first generation. But Krasner, Hartigan, Mitchell, Resnick, Frankenthaler and the rest were all closely in step. This article is very interesting - Ninth Street Show - a 1951 group show that covered the very broad ground...Modernist (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Color Field[edit]

I'm confused by the inclusion of Color Field painting in this article. The article on Color Field says that it was a separate style from Abstract Expressionism, although, of course, related to it. To me, the goals of the color field painters seemed quite different from those of the abstract expressionists. Also, the lack of sources in this article make me hesitate to trust the information presented here. Plus, several of the sources in the Color Field article (although not all of them are functional) indicate that Color Field painting was created in response to the qualities of Abstract Expressionism. So, what I'm really getting to: should Color Field be included in this article? This article even says multiple times, of Rothko's paintings, "which are not what would usually be called expressionist and which Rothko denied were abstract". Helixer (hábleme) 23:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

During the 1950s the abstract expressionists were divided into two separate styles: Action painting (coined by Harold Rosenberg) referencing among others Willem de Kooning, Franz Kline, Jack Tworkov, James Brooks, and aspects of both Robert Motherwell and Jackson Pollock and the style termed Color field (coined by Clement Greenberg) and roughly referencing among others Clifford Still, Mark Rothko, Barnett Newman, Adolph Gottlieb and aspects of both Jackson Pollock, and Robert Motherwell. The next generation of painters - coined by Greenberg as Post-painterly abstraction are also referred as the Color field painters as are other painters from the early to the late 1960s referenced that way...Modernist (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Consequences final sentence/source[edit]

The writing style of the final stanza is problematic. The point seems to be that the City of New York assumed a role of prominence in the art world as a result of many Abstract Expressionist painters being based close by. Further, that later styles such as Pop Art arose, flourished, or somehow benefited from that event. If this is the point, it is not made clear by this paragraph and there is no transition from previous paragraphs indicating a new sub topic.

A MOMA exhibition announcement should not be considered a considered a credible source. The information in the release may be accurate but it fails to demonstrate any rigor whatsoever in researching a credible secondary or tertiary source for this information.

Please consider allowing changes to this section to occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunupoernomo (talkcontribs) 15:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


Visual art needs to be seen - stop deleting those images use your brain. Per WP:IAR, WP:UCS - this is an encyclopedia - the gallery is the best and most efficient way to display those paintings and sculpture...Modernist (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

NFC policy declares that galleries of nonfree images are generally unacceptable. No exception is made in the policy for "visual art". And stop violating WP:CIVIL. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The policy needs changing...Modernist (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
That opinion plainly doesn't justify your defying it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Common sense indicates the policy is outdated, and predates by several years the building of this encyclopedia. The only way things change is when editors change things. Takes guts and common sense...Modernist (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions[edit]

We don't feature every collector's image of abstract expressionism or every cute photograph. This is an historical article in an encyclopedia not a fan magazine. Seems like pure promotion...Modernist (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A contemporary response to the Italian Renaissance is not required; nor is a contemporary response to cubism required, nor is a contemporary response to pop art required, let alone a contemporary response to Abstract expressionism...Modernist (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. Annie Liebowitz is an established artist with her own Wikipage. She is entitled to express her own viewpoint and interpretation of Kline and other artists of abstract expressionism in her own medium. The references to her as a "spam" artist are pejorative and degrading to her as an established artist. As they degrade her as a living artist they are against Wikipedia policy for WP:BLP and should be curtailed. OilandTempura (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
So put Annie's photo on Annie's article. Annie Liebowitz is a wonderful photographer, and Steve Martin is a great entertainer, neither one is an Abstract expressionist...Modernist (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Modernist and Freshacconci, both of whom reverted these edits. It's a trivial addition. The link to an auction website, which only shows the image, doesn't substantiate its being included here. To verify its place in the article, several reliable sources would need to cite the photograph's importance as a response to abstract expressionism. Additionally, to justify the addition of a new heading, multiple well-sourced examples of cultural responses are necessary--it's not explained why Leibowitz's image is particularly notable, or merits its own section. Nobody is taking issue with Liebowitz's notability; the insistence on mentioning her photo in this context raises concerns. JNW (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Merging "Abstract art" into this page?[edit]

Has there been discussion of merging the article Abstract Art with this page? They are both good and scholarly pages in their own way, but they do seem redundant. I would suggest retaining this one, the name Abstract expressionism being more specific than Abstract art.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 18:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Abstract expressionism is an art movement, referencing the 1940s through the 1970s; while Abstract art is a rubric covering a century long and longer conglomeration of dozens of different art movements...Modernist (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your view. Please note that the merger tag is required on the target page, as well as the page to be merged as per WP:merge. When the discussion is complete it is removed.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Modernist. Abstract Expressionism is specifically an American art movement. Abstract art describes art as it was produced beginning in the 19th century. The two terms are not synonymous. freshacconci talk to me 19:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, the terms are not even close...Modernist (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Then--if I understand these comments correctly--Abstract art is the genus, and Abstract expressionism is the species? That is, abstract art embraces a great many movements and abstract expressionism is but one of them? Put another way, is there any abstract expressionism that is not abstract art?ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 20:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • See Willem de Kooning: 'Woman#! - [1] or Jackson Pollock: Portrait and a Dream [2] or the work of dozens of other abstract expressionists...Modernist (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Modernist. Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, attractive paintings both, I appreciate your bringing them to my attention. Thanks also to Epeefleche for weighing in. But--de Kooning venturing into somewhat more figurative work means it's no longer abstract? Seems to me that Picasso's Cubism for example, was both figurative to some degree and considered abstract. So I am not sure if I am yet clear that there can be abstract expressionism that is not abstract art? Instead it looks like there is "pure" abstraction (say Jasper Johns paint squiggles) and somehwat less absolutely pure (Mondrian, definable geometric shapes) and less abstract still (Picasso's Guernica, a protest narrative)--yet all of these still fall under the large rubric Abstract art? Not to be difficult, just trying to get the categories right. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 21:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
It gets convoluted somewhat, as there is often not a great deal of agreement in these sorts of things. But "abstract" is best understood as "abstracted", i.e. moving away from representation. Terms like non-representational are often used for works that feature no recognizable imagery. And keep in mind abstract expressionism, although the dominant term, is not the only term. Others prefer action painting or the New York School. Abstract art is basically a generic term for any number of art movements. Abstract expressionism is used for what was happening mainly in New York in the 1940 and '50s. freshacconci talk to me 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Your fringe opinion is not how we write articles; see WP:OR and WP:FRINGE...Modernist (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Freshacconci, very helpful. As to Modernist, who has been editing since 2006 and certainly knows better than to remove merge tags, I will simply say--best wishes for a nice weekend.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 21:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, have a nice weekend as well...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A latecomer to this discussion, but per: Modernist, the two terms are not synonymous. Merging these would be rather like merging Landscape Painting with the Hudson River School. JNW (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

General comment[edit]

Much of this article lacks RS refs. And at the same time, I notice a great number of opinions presented in the material that lacks RS refs. Frankly, while well-written, it reads as though someone took their (or someone else's) paper and without sources plugged it in here. This by no means refers to all of the article, but it does refer to much of it. I think that the article would benefit from editors looking at that, and addressing it. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In section 7.2 of the Article, who actually belongs there?[edit]

Someone should examined the list of so-called artists whose mature work is supposed to be related to the American Abstract Expressionist movement (see (Note 7.2 Other artist) and ask if the following really belong in that section: William Brice, Alexander Bogen (was neither significant nor American), Charles Ragland Bunnell, Edward Corbett, Lynne Mapp Drexler, Jean Dubuffet, Sam Gilliam, Joseph Glasco, John D. Graham, Stephen Greene, Gino Hollander, Frances Kornbluth, André Lanskoy, Michael Loew, John Levee, Herbert Matter (he was not an Abstract Expressionist, he was a photographer and graphic designer), Seong Moy, Jan Müller, Pat Passlof, Earle M. Pilgrim, Aaron Siskind (a photographer who had little to do with the Abstract Expressionist movement), Ary Stillman, and Cora Kelley Ward. Sirswindon (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

While there are possibly a couple of questionable inclusions, most do belong. These all are directly related through their work, and/or influences, and/or their intimate contacts and certainly do belong: John D. Graham, Stephen Greene, Edward Corbett, Jean Dubuffet, Aaron Siskind, Sam Gilliam, Pat Passlof, Herbert Matter, Joseph Glasco, Cora Kelley Ward, Earle M. Pilgrim, Frances Kornbluth, Michael Loew, Jan Müller and John Levee. Matter and his wife Mercedes were both important members of the NY School; many of Siskind's photographs were directly influenced and are reminiscent of the work of his action painter friends...Modernist (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Subject for discussion.[edit]

Dear Modernist and JNW, Thank you for stimulating me to do some research. I contacted a professor of Art History at a nearby major university and spent four hours with him, resulting in the following: The American Abstract Expressionist Movement (AAEM) following WWII was an important period, and initially about a small group of New York artists Arshile Gorky, Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning. Later other artists became involved, mostly those in the New York area. My professor then pointed out, the major problem with the article in WIKIPEDIA is that the section “Major artists” is followed by: “Significant artists whose major work defined American Abstract Expressionism” which incorrectly describes about half of the 103 artists listed there. He commented that although Louis Bourgeois, Alexander Calder, Giorgio Cavallon, Mark di Suvero, Jane Frank, Helen Frankenthaler, Morris Graves, Cleve Gray, Philip Guston, David Hare, Paul Jenkins, Earl Kerkam, Albert Kotin, Ibram Lassaw, Alfred Leslie, Mercedes Matter, Stephen Pace, Fuller Potter, Richard Pousette-Dart, Ad Reinhardt, Milton Resnick, may all be considered part of AAEM, only few of their major works were AAE and in his opinion, none of these artists helped defined the AAEM. As to others in the list: William Baziotes was a friend of some Abstract Expressionists, but he did not consider himself as part of their movement, and certainly his major works were considered Surrealism. Jack Bush was mostly associated with the Color Field movement and Post-painterly Abstraction and not of the AAEM. Richard Lippold was known for his geometric constructions and was not part of the AAEM. The professor suggested that because the major works of Enrico Donati were Surrealism, that he and John Chamberlain belongs in the “Other” section. He also questioned why Friedel Dzubas was included in the “Major” section, as although some of his early work was AAE, his major works were Color Field painting. In the same vein he suggested Morris Louis and Ray Parker worked primarily in Color Field painting and should be in the “Other” section. The professor pointed out that although Jimmy Ernst was associated with the Abstract Expressionists, his work was primarily Surrealism and therefore he should also be in the “Other” section. That Louise Nevelson was certainly a notable American sculptor, it was suggested that she only had a minor involvement with the AAEM. As to Isamu Noguchi the professor wondered why he was in the Article except for one single reference and a few works which might be referenced as AAE; and regarding Kenzo Okada, he had little to do with the AAEM. George Rickey was an American kinetic sculptor and had little to do with the AAEM.

The professor said that Norman Lewis and Seymour Lipton were not very notable, and if included at all, they should be in the “Other” section. He questioned why Nicholas Marsicano was in the Article in the first place; although Marsicano taught at the New York School his work was neither significant nor of the AAEM . Canadian painter and sculptor Jean-Paul Riopelle was not connected to the AAEM except that he used some of the dripping techniques of Jackson Pollock. The professor was emphatic that Canadian William Ronald does not belong in the article, nor does Theodore Roszak.

He questioned Elaine de Kooning being included in a section titled: “Significant artists whose major work defined American Abstract Expressionism” because, although she was very active with the group, almost all of her work was in portraiture, and literally none in the AAEM.

Finally he asked why Ethel Schwabacher and Corinne Michelle West were not in the Article, as they both were Abstract Expressionists, maybe not significant, but they were AAE. The professor suggested that as Sonia Gechtoff and James Kelley are usually identified as “second generation abstract expressionist painters” maybe there should be a separate section for those in that generation, for those whose major works did not define the AAEM.

So my question to you: Shouldn’t that 103 names be severely cut in half, totally deleting some and placing the balance into the “Other” section? This might include artists whose “major works” might be considered AAEM, but who did little or nothing to help define the movement.

Finally, I showed him work by Rinaldo Paluzzi, and he remarked that Paluzzi’s work was certainly significant, and although some of it was in the same vein as many of the artists listed in the Major artists section of the Article, he agreed with Modernist and JNW, that Paluzzi is not of the AAEM.

Now I put this up for discussion (and I am not attempting at misdirection): If no reliable source can be found for referencing artists in the “Major” and “Other” sections of the Article, should they not be deleted? Examples: Where in Charles Alston or in Louis Bourgeois is there even one reference to their being part of the AAEM (yes, she befriended Mark Rothko and Jason Pollock, but so what!) ?

Looking forward to this discussion,


Sirswindon (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No Discussion required[edit]

Note - a discussion is not required regarding this well documented subject; Wikipedia is not a blog!!!...Modernist (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
First of all - your professors opinion doesn't amount to anything except just that - someones opinion, or WP:OR. Wikipedia asks for reliable published sources. Please refrain from your erroneous assertions - clearly you are vandalizing various historical articles with no and I repeat NO accurate intelligence regarding the subject...Modernist (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Second of all Abstract expressionism refers to a very large rubric; it defines an era; it defines an attitude in NYC, and California and other parts of the US, during the postwar era; it defines the work of certain artists; it also defines various aspects of painting and sculpture - at the time active art critics - among them - Harold Rosenberg, Clement Greenberg, Leo Steinberg, Meyer Shapiro and others disagreed as to what constituted abstract expressionism Rosenberg defined Action painting, Greenberg defined Color Field; the boundaries expanded and contracted. An artist like Morris Louis begins as an action painter in NYC during the early 50s and ends as a color field artist from Washington DC in the early 60s. His work however is part of the larger abstract expressionist rubric by virtue of what he did, who he knew, where he showed, and when he did what he did. The same holds for many of the inclusions who are mentioned...Modernist (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thirdly this is an extremely well documented subject; this discussion is gratuitous at best, either submit information based on published reliable sources or stop wasting everyone's time just because your inclusion was questioned...Modernist (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Fourthly Stop removing referenced content as you did at this article: Corinne Michelle West - it is considered WP:VANDALISM; if you object or have an issue on an articles content, discuss first on that articles talkpage before deleting referenced or any other content and material that you disagree with regarding this subject...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Modernist, I do apologize, if the future I will do as you have suggested. Please go to the talk page on her Article as I have done what you suggested. Sirswindon (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Finally If you want to learn what constitutes Abstract expressionism read some books...Modernist (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
To put it simply, we have to weigh misleading the reader against educating the reader. Bus stop (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Modernist Just who are you to pontificate that a discussion is not required? The strength of WIKIPEDIA is in having these discussions! So I believe a discussion has begun, and yes I have read Marka Herskovic’s NY School: abstract expressionists. Modernist or anyone else, please provide a reference showing that the major work of Alexander Calder, William Ronald, Morris Graves and Theodore Roszak “defined American Abstract Expressionism,” as that is what is required for them to be in what is the section titled: “Major Artists” ( Note: there are no references on their individual websites nor on the website of the article. In fact, there are no references on their individual websites nor on the website of the article as to their even being an Abstract Expressionist; all that seem to be someone’s opinion.) WIKIPEDIA has become a fine source for research, but even small items must be VALIIDATED. Yes, AE is a very large rubric, and as you say: it defines a post war era. Also as you say: the boundaries expanded and contracted. Morris Louis and his work may have been part of “the larger AE rubric of what he did” but that is your (and maybe some other’s opinion); however an opinion (not fact) is all it is. (It is my opinion that Paluzzi’s early work was in the “style” of some of the early AE artists. You made me understand that is not acceptable in WIKIPEDIA. All I ask is that the same standard be used in other articles.) So let us all stick to facts and not vague opinion. Now there is a simple solution. Just add the words: “some of” to “whose major work defined American Abstract Expressionism” and part of the problem could be solved (providing published reliable references as to how someone helped define a movement is almost impossible except for the few who actually started (defined) the movement). Of course it still would be required to show a VALID reference as to their being a part of the American Abstract Expressionist Movement, but that would not be as difficult as showing a reference as to their “defining” AAE. So I am requesting that: “some of” be added to “whose major work defined American Abstract Expressionism” or that published reliable references be provided for all the names in this section. If adding “some of” is not acceptable to clarify this problem, then the entire “whose major work defined American Abstract Expressionism” should be deleted. And I do thank you for taking the time to have a non-confrontational discussion. Sirswindon Sirswindon (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I must amend that to: "some of these artist's major work ...... " because probably it is not possible to find valid, objective (not opinion) references, validating possibly up to half of those on the list who actually defined AAE, the rest came along for the ride. (This is not an opinion, it is a fact.)

Sirswindon (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus required[edit]

Any changes you want to make regarding this: "being a major artist whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism." will require consensus...Modernist (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it should be agreed upon, after full discussion. But it is important as how the list of MAJOR artists is introduced, and I do not believe that all the names on the list were "major artists whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism." Some defined it, others (although their major work was AAE), they came along for the ride. Did not only a small group really "define" the movement. Therefore adding some were clarifies the naming of the list. Is that asking too much?

Sirswindon (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You say "they came along for the ride." Does failure of imagination disqualify one for inclusion in a movement? Smile.png Bus stop (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for entering the discussion. Like any major MOVEMENT, there are the “movers and shakers" and those who do not define it, but only come along for the ride (sometimes making a lot more $$$$$$$ than those that defined it. So what I am proposing is a small modification to the introduction to the list of over 100 names just under “Major artists” --- It should read: Significant artists some of whose major work help define American Abstract Expressionism. My reason for this edit is that not all of the Artists in the list produced mature work which defined AAE. As it now reads it is incorrect as it implies that every name in the list provided mature work that defined AAE. Some defined it and some were American Abstract Expressionists, who were only working in the movement. It may only be a small edit, but it is a significant one. Sirswindon (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That was fast, I just received an email with: "Significant artists some of whose major work helped to define American Abstract Expressionism". Sirswindon (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Research is so Rewarding![edit]

Modernist I do thank you for suggesting that I read Marika Herskovic’s book. “American Expressionism of the 1950’s.” A beautiful collection of Illustrations, but it does not contain any useful reference information regarding the biographies of the artists other than very brief notes as to: Born, Died, Exhibitions,; but nothing as to why they were included in her book. What I found of special interest was there are over twenty-five artists in her book that were not included in the WIKIPEDIA article: which brings up the question --- Why not? Examples include: Lawrence Calcagno, Leo Amino, Nanno de Groot, Jose de Rivera, James Budd Dixon, Leonard Edmondson, John Ferren, John Grillo, Raoul Hague, Jack Jefferson, Alfred Jenson, Walter Kuhlman, Frank Lobdell, Robert McChesney, Kyle Morris, George Morrison, Leonard Nelson, Robert Preusser, Melville Price, Tony Rosenthal, Richard Ruben, John Saccaro, Hassel Smith, Hassel Wendell Smith, Yvonne Thomas, John von Wicht, and Wilfrid Zogbaum.

Herskovic did include a number of artists, which in the Wiki article are in “Other Artists.” These include: William Brice, Charles Bunnell, Mary Callery, Edward Clark, Edward Corbett, Robert Richenburg.

So it would appear, for the WIKIPEDIA article on Abstract Expressionism to present a list of 100 artists as being “Significant artists whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism” seems to be grossly overstated and very subjective, without presenting anything to validate the statement. So before going any further, and because only a small number of these artists actually defined AAE, I again request that the introduction to the “List of abstract expressionists Major Artists” be changed to read: "Significant artists some of whose major work helped to define American Abstract Expressionism".

Modernist please let us have your comments. Also shouldn’t the names of artists (presented above, starting with Lawrence Calcagno) be added to the list of 100 names in the WIKIPEDIA article on Abstract Expressionism? If not, why not?

Note: Finally, at: ( there is a listing of “200 pages” “out of 225 total” Abstract expressionist artists. I plan to check to see if all the names in Herskovic are in that listing, and also if all the names there are also in the WIKIPEDIA article on Abstract Expressionism. The reason for doing this is that on checking one of the first names listed there (Gretna Campbell), her name was not in the “Other” list in the WIKIPEDIA article on Abstract Expressionism, so how many others were missed?

Sirswindon (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The advice to ignore rather than engage with a troll is sometimes phrased as "Please do not feed the trolls."
I never feed the Trolls...Modernist (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Since no one has offered an objection, I shall add Gretna Campbell to the “Other” list. I will also continue to ask others to enter the discussion as to why the 27 other Abstract Expressionist Artists who were included in Marika Herskovic’s book: ‘American Expressionism of the 1950s’ should not also be included in the “Other” section? Should no one offer a valid reason, I plan to add them to the “Other” list. (It is very sad that Modernist, has decided to engage in “name-calling” rather than entering a calm, intelligent discussion) Sirswindon (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?[edit]

De Kooning and Pollock reportedly considered Hyman Bloom "the first Abstract Expressionist artist in America". This was after seeing his early work in the "Americans 1942" exhibit. He ended up doing a lot more figurative painting, which is the reason that's often given for his relative obscurity.

"Bloom was the link between Boston Expressionism and the New York School of Abstract Expressionism. Thomas Hess, in Abstract Painting, 1951, reproduces Bloom's Archaeological Treasure in color and is clearly laudatory.13 This praise may have been due to the influence of Hess's favorite painter, Willem de Kooning, who made it very clear to me in a conversation in 1954 that he and Jackson Pollock considered Bloom, whom they had discovered in Americans 1942, 'the first Abstract Expressionist artist in America.'"

Chaet, Bernard (1980). "The Boston Expressionist School: A Painter's Recollections of the Forties". Archives of American Art Journal (The Smithsonian Institution) 20 (1): 28. 

I'll just leave this information here, and if anyone thinks it's worth mentioning, you can mention it. Otherwise, ignore. --Rosekelleher (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rosekelleher Your mentioning Bloom to be added was just completed. You could have done it yourself as you were correct in what you wrote. Sirswindon (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Sirswindon. I see you added him to the list without any context, which might be a little misleading. I'll take a crack at this myself, and if anyone doesn't like what I do they can revert it. --Rosekelleher (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about where some Artists should be listed.[edit]

Please, can Modernist or anyone else please explain why Albert Alcalay, Charles Alston, Alice Baber, William Baziotes, Norman Bluhm, Louise Bourgeois, Ernest Briggs, James Brooks, Fritz Bultman, Jack Bush, and Alexander Calder should not be moved to “Other Artists”? None of them can be considered as Major Abstract Expressionist Artists whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism. Calder belonged to the “Kinetic Art Movement” and the others played no significant role and were minor contributors to the Abstract Expressionist Movement. Sirswindon (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lets be clear - STOP TROLLING are you are going to go through the entire alphabet now - from A to Z? Drop the WP:STICK you're beating a dead horse - just get over it...Modernist (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Modernist you use "name-calling" rather than entering into a polite, constructive discussion. You suggested I do research, which I am doing, and this article needs for it to be done. So stop the name-calling and join in with a constructive discussion, or just go away and hopefully others will join the discussion. Sirswindon (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Several names mentioned above are listed as abstract expressionists at The Met and at MoMA. Coldcreation (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Coldcreation, they are abstract expressionists, but my question is don't they belong in "other" as none of them can be considered as "Major Abstract Expressionist Artists whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism". Now, if the introduction to the “List of abstract expressionists Major Artists” is changed to read: "Significant artists some of whose major work helped to define American Abstract Expressionism", then they might be included in Major. (See the TALK above.) Sirswindon (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Why remove Romul Nuțiu?[edit]

Modernist Why did you reject OlivianBRENDA inserting Romul Nuțiu into the “Other” list and give your reason “not an American abstract expressionist” when there are other non-Americans on that list, such as Wols, Kumi Sugai, Bram van Velde, Nína Tryggvadóttir, Antoni Tàpies, Nicolas de Staël and Zao Wou Ki. Reading the WIKIPEDIA article on Romul Nuțiu provides adequate references as to why he belongs with the other non-Americans in this list (or if he does not belong in the list, take all the non-Americans off the list)! Others please comment. Sirswindon (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sirswindon—are you serious? You can't harass another Wikipedia editor. What kind of a section heading is "The Heavy Hand of Modernist Strikes Again"? Please remove that section heading. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I do apologize to you and Modernist, but I was shocked that an experienced Editor would use for a reason “not an American abstract expressionist” when there are other non-Americans on that list. Maybe you can look at the list and explain why Romul Nuțiu should not be added to the list?
Reading the above makes one wonder why Romul Nuțiu is not in the "Other List" and why Modernist has not replied to his "a non-American cannot be on the list" when there are other non-Americans on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Only following edits by JNW[edit]

Per other edits by JNW there are no published references as to Wilke, Wols or Zao Wou Ki being part of the Abstract Expressionism Movement or that their work was stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists, as is required for them to be in this list. If you can, then they should be there. I am not being disruptive, and you know that. You delete an artist by writing “not an American” when there are other artist in the list who were not American. Actually you are being disruptive in not being open to constructive dialog, and following your own rules. Sirswindon (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Forgive me, but bullshit. This has never been about Modernist's behavior; if it was, you have always been free to seek administrative assistance. For at least a month I've watched Rinaldo Paluzzi, and your efforts to add him here as an Abstract Expressionist, and then to credit him similarly at his biography. There are apparently no published references to support this, but we've been through that multiple times. The history here is all about WP:POINTY, and seeking to cause disruption for not getting your way. To quote the Wikipedia guideline directly:
If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content...
do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source.
do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced.
  • When I decide to take a half hour or so to gather links to the dozens of disruptive edits, I'll cobble together a report. JNW (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Major artists vs. Other artists[edit]

This article groups the artists into two groups; Major artists vs. Other artists. While that would be fine if there were RS support for the split, I don't see evidence of any. We should not split the two based on OR. Does anyone have any RS support for the split? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche—connoisseurship plays a role in writing about art, in fact, as you know, good judgement plays a role in many things at Wikipedia. By connoisseurship I don't mean evaluation of aesthetic merits, for instance. I mean emphasis supplied by or not supplied by sources. In this case there are important artists that do not work squarely in the realm of Abstract expressionism. An example might be Frank Stella. He is merely listed as an "Other artist". Ditto for Robert Rauschenberg, Jean Dubuffet, and Jasper Johns. These are "major artists" but not ones most closely associated with Abstract expressionism. The artists listed under "Major artists" are the ones that sources identify more strongly with Abstract expressionism. An argument can be made for dissolving the barrier between the two categories. But I think that by eliminating the separation we would be losing a degree of information. More properly we could advise the reader to understand that separation as not absolute. Or perhaps we could write "Major artists (those most closely associated with Abstract expressionism)". Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bus. Thanks for your thoughts. I don't have a conceptual problem with a split between Major and Other. As long as it is something that an editor can come along and agree or disagree with, based on some objective (RS-supported) criteria. As an example, in sports I could say ... in baseball ... Major league vs. Other. But it is easy to determine which category the person belongs in. I could also distinguish All Star vs. not All Star. But if you were to suggest "Majorly good vs. Not so much", that would be a recipe for endless fruitless discussion. On top of that here, not only don't I know where the line is between major and minor, I don't know how much Abstract painting the artist must engage in to be Abstract vs. Major-painter-but-not really-major-in-Abstract. Plus, we like to have criteria that a novice with zero information -- just access to google and perhaps books in the field -- could apply. I think that to approach this otherwise simply has too much OR inherent in it. If there is a list in an RS of "Major artists (those most closely associated with Abstract expressionism)", then great, but if it is really like a favorite list on Amazon of three readers favorite movies of the year, I don't think we are losing that much at all. Thoughts? Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Abstract expressionism has a philosophical underpinning. Frank Stella has done a large body of work of varying underlying philosophies. As some of his work is importantly associated with Minimalism it might be best to exclude him from the closest of associations with Abstract expressionism. Robert Rauschenberg too. His work is closely associated with Pop art, Neo-Dada, and his own category—Combines. Jean Dubuffet is especially associated with art brut. Jasper Johns is associated with Pop art and Neo-Dada. Writers of the time that Abstract expressionistic work was being produced, identified those painters that were felt to express an embodiment of a currently fashionable philosophy. That philosophy involved a direct translation of one's inner turmoil into marks on a canvas. Authenticity of such translation from mental cogitation into painting was highly valued. Therefore the "major" artists are those most closely associated with Abstract expressionism by sources. Bus stop (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I can tell you know far more than I do, here. Look -- would I be able to split the US Presidents into Major and Other? I could, based on OR. But I could only justify such a split list if I had RSs that indicated that certain Presidents were the Major Presidents. Same here, IMHO. When you end your comment by saying "by sources", that suggests that perhaps there is RS sourcing for inclusion as "Major". If so, great. If not, I would suggest one list. It will just be an interminable argument otherwise, as it will be OR-based. Look, I'm having a frustrating time right now arguing a much simpler distinction of "in or out" here, where I even have RS support and highest-level government authorities speaking to the subject of "in or out". So ... that's where I'm coming from. Epeefleche (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know more than you about this. Even if we combined the two separate lists into one list, a similar problem might exist. There could conceivably be cases where disagreements could break out as to whether or not to include an artist in that one list. There are a huge number of artists and some sources might be insubstantial, and some mentions in sources might be insubstantial mentions. Would we really be accomplishing anything my merging the two lists? Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
You are of course correct that combining the two lists would not eliminate all categorization problems. Look at the discussion I point to above, for example. It would however, I think, significantly reduce the prospect of them. I think it is far more common for an artist to be referred to in an RS as an Abstract Expressionist artist -- or not ... than as a "Major" Abstract Expressionist artist -- or not. And we, as we do with categories, would just rely on RS coverage. Speaking of categories, it is interesting that not even all of the artists on our Major list are presently included in Category:Abstract expressionist artists. It's sort of like the difference between saying someone is a Buddhist ... or saying that they are a religious Buddhist. The first construct is simply a more likely dividing line to be reported on by RSs, though on occasion there may be mention of the second. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


I think it would be good to include a section that mentions some of the galleries that focus on Abstract Expressionist art. The Tibor de Nagy Gallery, the Stable Gallery, perhaps the Betty Parsons Gallery and Kootz Gallery, etc. Any thoughts/suggestions? --Epeefleche (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

While that might seem to be a good idea it gets extremely complicated. Tenth Street galleries for instance contains artists who made Abstract expressionism, Pop Art, Minimal art, Realism, Figurative artists, abstract artists, often shown in the same galleries. Likewise even though at one time the Sidney Janis Gallery showed Pollock, de Kooning, Kline, Rothko, Guston, Gottlieb, Motherwell, and others - by '62 they began showing Oldenburg, Wesselmann, and other Pop artists while some of the Abstract expressionist painters left for the Marlborough Gallery or joined the Knoedler Gallery, or stayed away from the galleries altogether for a number of years, or joined other galleries that also moved away from what they were doing. The subject is Abstract expressionism and who does it; the gallery scene of constant change is another subject and another universe, IMHO...Modernist (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)