Talk:Caspar David Friedrich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Caspar David Friedrich is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 27, 2009.
November 27, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Visual arts (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 

Short addition concerning HA Schult[edit]

This edit has been removed by another user. As it was only a minor addition, I do not understand why it has been removed. Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Friedrich not 20th century - 21st century add ons. Develop consensus here before making any further additions...Modernist (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd say keep it as part of the note on the whole. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough as a note on the whole...Modernist (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. Thanks. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The section in question states that Friedrich has been "cited as an influence" by "major" 20th C artists, like Rothko. Rothko is rightly considered a "major artist" but I don't think that it is an appropriate label for a fairly obscure artist like Schult. Also, the footnote added does not refer to Friedrich being an influence on the artist but rather an unattributed statement that someone (who?) likened Schult to Friedrich, which is not an example of Schult citing Friedrich as an influence on his work. It also includes a quote in English, but that is misleading since the original source is in German, not English. Where is the translation and who did it? Lastly, can anyone confirm that Schult is in fact mentioned in the Siegfried Salzmann reference that was cited? Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
In Germany, HA Schult is reckoned among "the most important performance artists of our day". See Nico Schröter, Kai Giesler and Philipp Kohde, LOVE LETTERS BUILDING - Postfuhramt Berlin Mitte - ein Denkmal im Sog von Werbung und Marketing (Technische Universität Cottbus, 2002), p. 6. So much for the importance of this "fairly obscure artist". The German source is accurately translated into English ("Caspar David Friedrich des Konsumzeitalters"). What should be wrong with this? Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing him until this dispute is resolved. He is utterly obscure in the USA - I just realized that User Wikiwiserick placed him into this article without consensus in 2010...Modernist (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You are a one shot pony - promoting this guy all over the place [1]...Modernist (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand your argument, especially in view of the fact that Caspar David Friedrich is a German artist. Furthermore, Schult isn't "utterly obscure in the USA", as his performances are recognized in the whole world. There are articles on his work in the New York Times and the Washington Post and his happenings were shown on American TV. See also the many bibliographical references to publications on Schult's work in John Gray, Action Art: A Bibliography of Artists' Performance: From Futurism to Fluxus and Beyond (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993), pp. 237-38. Schult creates performances at the cost of millions of dollars. For the immense costs of the "Crash" happening on Staten Island, New York, see Colin Naylor, Contemporary Artists (St. James Press, 1989), p. 850. For the privilege to install 1000 "trash people" on the Great Wall of China, he had to pay 4 million marks. See Flash Art, 231, 2003, 73 and this American PhD thesis, p. 9. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an article about a painter. Being German does not guarantee inclusion. Your guy is a performance artist he isn't a painter and his work has absolutely nothing to do with Friedrich; you added the link 2 years ago, long after we created this article and here you are 2 years later adding more - sorry but consensus is against you...Modernist (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Take it elsewhere - doesn't matter how much money he spent - he does not belong in this article...Modernist (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. An artist would not be considered a "major artist" (along the lines of Rothko who is internationally recognized) merely because they have been mentioned in an American newspaper or a relatively obscure book in German. I concur with Modernist regarding removal of the text in question. Seems like a case of WP:ADVOCACY. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, Schult is also an artist who has combined painting techniques and garbage in his objects of the 1970s (mainly "biokinetic landscapes"). His early work is certainly influenced by Friedrich - not his performances, for which he is more known nowadays. See [2] [3]. See also [4]. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't add everyone who was influenced by an artist like Friedrich or who likes him - we'd have to add thousands, go away...Modernist (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
We can add Akira Kurosawa too, those awful links look like they relate to Kurosawa's late films, see this Dreams (1990 film)...Modernist (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
So you are not willing to include a short reference to Schult in the Friedrich article, although the early work of this major German performance artist has clearly been influenced by Friedrich. Very interesting indeed. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct...Modernist (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I would say that this is not O.K.: (1) Schult is not an "obscure" but an important artist of our day, his current work being supported by Dr Annette Schavan, Federal Minister of Education and Research, Germany, the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, The State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg, and several other major institutes and organizations; (2) one of his many works that include clear references to Friedrich was commissioned by the politicians of the German Bundestag (that's why the artist emphasized the German Romantic tradition in this work); (3) linking is an important feature of Wikipedia, binding the project together into an interconnected whole, as connections to a related subject of another article is always useful. So if there are references to other artists of the twentieth century who have been influenced by Friedrich, a short reference to Schult must also be included, especially as academic sources say that he is as important as they are. Wikiwiserick (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Take it someplace else - this is seriously inappropriate for this article...Modernist (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I've removed your other inappropriate additions as well...Modernist (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
If you are fully aware of what you have done now, then you should remove the references to all other twentieth-century artists, too. For Graubner and Friedrich, see, for instance, this source or this one. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As you seem to have no knowledge of the influence of Friedrich's painting on major German artists of the second half of the twentieth century, as your recent removals clearly show, Modernist, you are not the right person to decide which links should be included in this featured article or not. Therefore, I have reverted your edits and added some additional references. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And you seem to be refusing to listen to what other editors are telling you. These are the same editors you canvassed for input,[5][6] contrary to WP guidelines and, in one case, despite being warned not to.[7] In the last few days, you have filed a third opinion request,[8] and a dispute resolution request,[9] and you have directly solicited various editors -- in all cases, they are telling you the same things, but you continue to ignore them and edit war,[10] thereby wasting a considerable amount of WP resources. If you continue this advocacy while ignoring input from the community and editing tendentiously/disruptively, it may result in an editing block. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
As you were deeply involved in an edit war with me, Rhode Island Red, and, as I know, are no expert in Caspar David Friedrich and German painting of the second half of the twentieth century, your comment here is completely superfluous. This is a content dispute about the influence of Caspar David Friedrich on German art of the 20th century, and I have cited reliable sources that cannot be denied. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the last time you'll troll this page, consensus is against you...Modernist (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Can be and have been denied -- repeatedly! As I said, if you continue on this path of ignoring community input/consensus and editing disruptively/tendentiously, an editing block may result. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Location of death[edit]

The article seems pretty good but nowhere does it say where he died. That's why infoboxes are so useful but there seems to be a movement inside Wikipedia trying to abolish them. Not that I am saying this is the case in this article but nowhere does it say where this great painter died. Regards. 93.82.76.201 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

In Dresden, which I've added. The dates in the first lines used to include the places too, but the MOS changed that, perhaps a pity. Nott enough to justify and infobox though. The article is short on info as to where he lived too, which could be added. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Hi, while I don't agree with the recent edit, I'd still integrate the infobox. Any justifiable objections? Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • This is a featured article and the infobox is not needed...Modernist (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It's there at most bio articles. It's nice for an overview. Why not here? -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It makes the lead image too small for one thing. This is an issue with a very long history. aren't you aware of it? See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because there were multiple things that were done in the edit with which we have gone back and forth, I feel it is helpful to break that edit down into functional portions in order to identify what is controversial and what is not. The edit consisted of the following:
  1. Add an infobox
  2. Change the order of {{main|List of works by Caspar David Friedrich}}. This was moved to the top of the section in which it is located. That it should be immediately under the section heading is explicitly specified in WP:MOS#Section organization. The visual impact on the page is noticeable only with the page in a narrow window.
  3. Use {{-}} to force the "External video" box to complete prior to the gallery being shown. The visual impact on the page is visible only when viewing the page in a wide window.
  4. Change the size of the pictures in the gallery
  5. Add Image: Image:Caspar David Friedrich - Klosterruine Eldena (ca.1825).jpg to the gallary
  6. References changed from {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} to {{Reflist|20em}}
  7. Bibliography changed from {{refbegin|2}} to {{refbegin|30em}}
  8. Add a blank line between the last external link and the {{Caspar David Friedrich}} at the bottom of the page.
  9. Change the order of categories at the bottom of the page. No categories were added or removed.
  10. Removal of invalid null parameters in citation templates (Re-added to article)
  11. Fleshing out a bare URL citation (Re-added to article)
If I have missed something, please feel free to add it to the above list.
I have assumed #9 and #10 are non-controversial and re-added those changes into the article.
Number 3: I would normally use the {{clear}} template in such a location. To me, it appears to be an improvement. However, I can not test in all environments:OS/browser/mobile/etc.
I object to the combination of #6 and #7. The References and Bibliography sections should retain a look similar to each other. Two columns, as they are currently, appears to be the most common. My primary issue wrt. these is that they should end up with both sections having the same number of columns of similar width.
Number 8 appears to be an improvement. It does a better job of visually separating those elements on the page.
Number 1: It appears that the primary contention is with the infobox
In the five years since this page became a featured article, infoboxes have become basically standard on Wikipedia. The fact that this is a featured article does not mean that it should never change. It does mean that extra care should be taken when making changes so that the quality of the article is not reduced.
The infobox appeared to be a reasonable addition to the article (Although, I would not have limited the image width to 187 pixels which I felt was too small; this could easily be adjusted.). Adding an infobox moves the article towards being more consistent in look-and-feel with the rest of enwiki (or at least that is my impression). In a brief look at the current feature article candidates, I noted that only 2 of those 52 FA candidate articles do not have an infobox.
I am neither strongly for nor against having an infobox in this article. I lean towards having one because it gathers interesting data in a easily accessible location and having one appears to be more consistent with the majority of maintained articles on enwiki.
NOTE: The above was written prior to my reading the previous two responses. As of the time I post this, I have not yet read the arbitration case linked above. I will do so. However, I will state again that I am neither strongly for an infobox in this article, nor strongly against one. It does appear that it could benefit the article to have one, but only if there is consensus to do so. — Makyen (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Johnbod, Ceoil and I as well as several editors worked hard bringing this to FA status. Yesterday - I returned the article to its FA form as of 9 January 2014 [11]; because after which on 13 January an editor utterly changed the gallery and screwed up the article format - see the gallery after this edit [12]. Yesterday I also attempted - unsuccessfully - to add this image Ruine Eldena (incorrectly titled Eldena Abbey Ruins by the editor in February), that had been added in February without explanatory text; but I realized it is redundant with this image The Abbey in the Oakwood - see this - Eldena Abbey - and really doesn't work with the rest of the article, wasn't needed, so I didn't add it. I appreciate Makyen fixing the reference templates; as to the External Video - it was added long after the article achieved FA status. As to the infobox - it is not required and it was left out by consensus...Modernist (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

File summary box[edit]

This is quite a minor issue, but I happened to notice that the summary box with the file of Graveyard under Snow lists Cmentarz w śniegu as the title in Portuguese.[13] Actually, that's the title in Polish. Sca (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)