Talk:Scottish art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Scottish art was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
September 28, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Scotland (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated GA-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 

university of Dundee[edit]

The University of Dundee has a chair in Scottish Art History, currently held by Professor Murdo MacDonald, an authority on the Celtic Revival and Patrick Geddes, and a former editor of the Edinburgh Review. According to journalistic sources, only about one quarter of great Scottish art is on display at any one time, there being a chronic shortage of either display space, or interest, or both. One example is John Duncan's iconic "The Coming of Bride", which Glasgow Museums have held in store for a decade as of 2007. -- unsigned

sections[edit]

this page could use some sections created. -- Akb4 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It could use a helluva lot of things; much more content for one. Twospoonfuls 12:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Restructuring[edit]

The organization of this article is pretty confusing. The only section is "Early Scottish Art", which starts with a description of Pictish carved stone balls from prehistory. Is that right? It seems like discussion of Pictish art needs to be disentangled from prehistoric art. That same section then covers the topic through history to contemporary art.

I'd like to propose the following sections:
1. Prehistory
--Neolithic Age
--Bronze Age
--Iron Age
2. Medieval Period
--Pictish
--Celtic Christian
3. Renaissance
4. Reformation
5. Scottish Enlightenment
6. Modern to Contemporary
--19th Century
--20th Century
--21st Century

For the most part, I think the existing content could be rearranged to fit this (or a similar) structure. Distinctions between Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron age art will be required, and additional content might be necessary to flesh out those Prehistory subsections. It might be best to avoid those particular subsections for now. Cygnus921 (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scottish art/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll read through and commence the review proper shortly. Looks interesting though! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - look forward to it.--SabreBD (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
NB, on hold, while references are found for newly added material. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Sabred, I'm afraid the article isn't really stable at the moment and I'm going to have to fail the review on that basis. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
That is disappointing, but I note the reason.--SabreBD (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

  • "List of artists" should really become a "See also", since there's nothing else in the section. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I have move this and the similar section to the see also section.--SabreBD (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

  • footnotes 61-65 need access dates and publishers fn 66 needs an access date; the publisher could usefully be expanded out to their full name.
I can format these, but (as mentioned below) are we happy that these are appropriate third party sources?--SabreBD (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
They're not ideal, but if they're only supporting the statement that a particular art school exists, they'd seem sufficient to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • some uncited bits (see c below)
Yes check.svg Done--SabreBD (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • some citations have publisher and location, some just publisher; this should ideally be consistent.
Yes check.svg Done.--SabreBD (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "These include the ceiling at Prestongrange, undertaken in 1581 fool. 95, (1964), pp. 262–79." - something went wrong with the formatting here.
Yes check.svg Done.--SabreBD (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • the Bibliography section doesn't seem to match up with the works used in the article; was this supposed to be a Further Reading section? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Since it lacked full details and did not match the notes I deleted it.--SabreBD (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

  • and described as "perhaps the finest medieval manuscript to have been commissioned for Scottish use". As a direct quote, I'd usually expect to see the source mentioned by name (e.g. "and described by historian John Smith as "perhaps...")
  • "and has been seen as "the founder of the Scottish landscape tradition"" - ditto. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done.--SabreBD (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

  • The second two paragraphs of the "Scottish Renaissance" may contain OR, as they are currently unreferenced.
The Scottish Renaissance and particularly these artists, are already mentioned with sourced in the text. The origins, which was sourced, does not appear to be directly relevant to an article on art. I am not against making a sub-section of this, but it needs not to be a repetition or unsourced.--SabreBD (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The "In popular culture" section gives no references to support its choice of novels etc.
I deleted this.--SabreBD (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • A lot of the second para of "Art schools and colleges" is unsourced/not supported by the references cited.
I removed the remaining unsourced part at the end, but does this refer to parts that have sources? There is also the issue of whether these are appropriate third party sources, since they are basically the websites of the institutions.--SabreBD (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

  • Is it worth defining early on what kind of arts the article will refer to? The main "art" article uses the definition "the visual arts, which cover the creation of images or objects in fields including painting, sculpture, printmaking, photography, and other visual media", which might make a good footnote.
Not quite sure what you mean here. Should we adopt this into the text or put it in a footnote?--SabreBD (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm about to dig through some of the possible sources on the modern period, so will come back to this section. 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I've done some wider "due diligence" reading. I'm not a specialist, however, so please challenge if you disagree!
  • My sense is that the article probably needs to be slightly stronger on the contemporary period - late 20th century, early 21st. Looking at online texts like Richardson, for example the introduction, there does seem to be a line of secondary sources discussing the interrelation of artists, modern Scottish identity and issues of funding and style. This doesn't come across strongly in these sections.
OK I will see what I can put together over the weekend.--SabreBD (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The article does need to give some sort of description of art organisations, schools etc. I'm not finding a huge literature on these for the contemporary period though, so it could be short. My advice would be to fold this into the main narrative, rather than as short, stand-alone sections, but that's not a GA requirement.
  • If this was an English article, I'd expect to see more on medieval ecclesiastical art. You probably know better than I do if this is the case in Scotland, but the coverage here appeared brief. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
There was probably a lot less of this than in England as Scotland lacked the wealth that was found in places like East Anglia as a result of the wool trade. A point that I think is made in the text is that the iconoclasm in Scotland in the Reformation era was also much more complete. In short, we do not have the same level of surviving material culture from the late Middle Ages.--SabreBD (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

  • Appears neutral so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

  • Has recovered after a mild hiatus the other week. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The In Popular Culture section doesn't appear to satisfy the criteria for inclusion, WP:IPCEXAMPLES, at least not without a better explanation of why they relevant to the article. Are they notable examples of art criticism, for example, that sum up the character of Scottish art? Is there a secondary literature that explores the novels mentioned in relation to the subject at hand? If not then better off without. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
      • The phrases "Perhaps those generally felt most applicable to the definition of 'art school', however, are the autonomous colleges or schools of art offering courses across both further and higher education boundaries. ", "In addition, some local authorities and private interests have also leant their support to the arts.", and "There are numerous small arts festivals in Scotland, but most of these are devoted to the wider arts, rather than just the visual arts." violate WP:WEASEL quite apart from being uninformative. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 19:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

  • Towriepetrosphere.jpg has a valid US PD tag, but lacks the corresponding explanation of why it is PD in the UK, the source country. I'd consider looking at providing a date of death for the author.
  • McTaggart, Through Wind and Rain.jpg claims PD based on the life+70 rule, but doesn't give a date of death for the author.
Yes check.svg Done--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Frances Macdonald, Sleeping Princess.jpg. Ditto.
Yes check.svg Done--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Lamb-Lena Gaudie.jpg needs a UK Right of Panorama tag assigned to it, unless William Lamb's copyright has expired due to the life + 70 rule. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done It is deleted.--SabreBD (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

  • I'd query if First 092.jpg is really telling us much about Scottish art (it looks like a grass square to me with some young people sat on it).
I removed this one. There is also not room for it.--SabreBD (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The article, thankfully, complies with WP:GALLERY, which discourages the insertion of large numbers of images in galleries unless specifically justified and carefully selected.
  • There's some "wrapping" of images in the The European Renaissance in Scotland, Art schools and colleges and Twentieth century to the present sections, suggesting a little pruning is required.
I think this is no longer a problem, but I need to check the problem on a widescreen.--SabreBD (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • MOS would have Lena Gaudie 1921 by William Lamb either right justified, or left justified under the second para I think. (NB: not a formal GA requirement though)
Yes check.svg Done It is deleted.--SabreBD (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Not a GA requirement (but would come up at FA) - are the carved stone ball from Towie really an ideal "intro" image for the article? They are in black and white, hand-drawn rather than a photo, and I'd imagine some of the later images might work better in drawing in the passing reader. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The lead picture was once Raeburn's The Skating minister. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 21:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    Its a fair point. We could go back to the Raeburn, as we have no picture by him in the article now. It would also be more representative. I will change it over in a few days, but hang on in case there are other suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I notice another omission, namely the omission of metal working, pottery (incl. porcelain), glass working, jewellery etc

Sculpture is not well covered in this piece either.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine and decorative art belong to different classifications thanks, largely, to the institutional theory of art, there would need to be a compelling reason not to keep it that way. The only Scottish sculptors I can think of are the architectural ones such as Mossman, are they fine artists? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 19:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already mentioned Stoddart and Paolozzi, there are many other notable Scottish sculptors. This article is about art, not "fine art".

I put the bibliography back. It is quite obviously a generalised list, that early writers used for the article. I see no harm in it remaining.

This article DOESN'T have a broad coverage for reasons I've discussed elsewhere on this page. It chiefly deals with painting from certain periods. Completely omits several major artistic movements to boot, and mainly concentrates on history. (Despite largely avoiding the whole issue of Calvinism, destruction of pre-Reformation art, artists' colonies, industrial revolution, Celtic Twilight/Revival, Scottish Renaissance, Vorticism etc and Lord knows what else.)

"it looks like a grass square to me with some young people sat on it" <- It's the quad of an art college in a section about art colleges. I used Gray's to avoid using Glasgow School of Art, which is almost "too obvious".

The Skating Minister, which is a cliche along with Vettriano's Butler. It's also arguably a fake, there was some controversy about that a few years ago.

I don't know what "weasel" is. Presumably some Wikipedia jargon. Can we use standard English here please? --MacRusgail (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC) p.s. Popular culture - have you actually read/seen Jean Brodie?

Try WP:WEASEL, which should explain what the editor meant. I'm not sure if the query on Jean Brodie was aimed at me, but for what it's worth, no, I haven't. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear here, most of these points seem to me to be disagreements with the GA review. I am attempting to comply with the points made in the GA as best I can and so I do not plan to respond where this is the case. If the reviewer can be persuaded to change their mind (or I have misinterpreted something), then I am happy to comply with any changes, but they have the final say in this review. On the broader point of alleged omissions, yet again there are references to these things in the text - perhaps a word search would help. Of course, if you have reliable sources and inclusion does not unbalance the article (bearing in mind that the sections use WP:Summary style summary style and are not meant to be comprehensive), then by all means go ahead and expand the text.--SabreBD (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Weasel? Can you use English please? There are terms in our language for such things, without resorting to this week's Wikipedian neologisms!!! I have pointed out repeatedly to you my concerns about this article, but you choose to ignore them. This is not just an article about the history of fine art painting in Scotland.
Aye, it's fairly obvious that the reviewers haven't seen/read Jean Brodie. This kind of thing is the curse of Wikipedia. A lot of the reviewers seem to know little or nothing about the subject matter.--MacRusgail (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that the article is notr sufficiently comprehensive, even for GA, in its coverage, which is extemely patchy. It is also a pity to see material that is filling some of the gaps removed on the grounds that it is impeding the GA process. At the same time additions should be referenced. I would suggest that this GA nom is withdrawn or suspended and the two principal current editors work on improving it before it is renominated or the review restarted. Johnbod (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

Although this article is currently under an active GA review, large scale changes and additions have been made which include unexplained deletions, addition of unsourced material and edits that create problems under the MOS. I reverted these and asked for discussion on the talkpage - the normal process under WP:BRD. This has been reverted and it now has an "under construction" tag. I do not want to get into an edit war here so can we at least have an explanation of what the intention is here.--SabreBD (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not very helpful thank you. The most obvious weaknesses in this article are a) the lack of images (compared to other arts pages), and b) it is mostly about art history, hence I added some material about galleries, arts schools etc. Scottish art is a living resource, and it is also celebrated, funded and displayed in various forms.
Personally I do not think this article gives a very good reflection of Scottish art. Neolithic art is rubbing shoulders with Celtic Art, and post-war material is side by side with contemporary material. Cygnus above, has given a fairly good guide for reconstruction, but this does not tackle some of the issues I've mentioned.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC) p.s. In its current state I would be very surprised if this article is anywhere near being an FA.
I am not against adding sections on topics should as art education and galleries. I am against what looks like sticking in unsourced and poorly constructed versions of these. As it stands these edits also create a large number of problems, breaking links, leaving single sentence paragraphs and creating sandwiching of text discouraged by MOS:IMAGES, to name but a few. In short, in the middle of a GA review these edits put the article in a state where it can not possibly pass GA (please note not it is up for GA not for FA). Under WP:BRD the changes were reverted and you should have come here before restoring them. Then we can discuss how best to proceed.--SabreBD (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This is once again, highly bureaucratic. The article is essentially art history, not about Scottish art in general. For an article about the visual arts, it seems to be incredibly text-orientated.
Like I say, I do not think the article will (or should) reach GA in the current state. With or without my edits.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
You did already day that, but I am asking you to revert your edits under BRD, so that we can reach a consensus on these major changes.--SabreBD (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
From a reviewing perspective, it would be good to know where folks stand. I'll be applying the standard criteria, including whether it addresses the main aspects of the topic, whether it is suitably illustrated by images (following the WP:Image guidelines) and whether it is factually accurate and verifiable. If sections are without references, for example, that will be awkward, so if it would be useful for me to hold off on the review for a day or so while those are added, let me know. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of further repetition, I think that we should go back to the previous version, as this version is very unlikely to pass due to the lack of sources alone and then deal with any issue like lack of coverage, either as part of the GA review process or through discussion here, hopefully in time to fulfill the GA. Really, it shouldn't be possible to torpedo a GA review like this.--SabreBD (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
As I said, it is extremely unlikely to pass any GA review in its previous form anyway, which is deficient in all the areas that I have mentioned and more. I am actually stunned that it is up for a GA review - I wouldn't have made the recent edits, if I had thought it was. No reflection of LIVING Scottish art, collections/galleries, organisations etc etc. It barely covers movements within Scottish arts, and has only a handful of images.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
"From a reviewing perspective, it would be good to know where folks stand." - To summarise my view - 1) lacks images, 2) overemphasis on art history, 3) does not discuss movements and tendencies within Scottish art in enough detail, 4) prior to my edits did not mention art schools, colleges, galleries, funding organisations etc, 5) does not separate different periods of history well, 6) deals a lot with painting, but not much with sculpture etc. Compare this to Australian art, which I consider a better article, and I have taken some inspiration from.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The article on Australian Art is a dog's breakfast of disorganised facts without narrative, I sincerely hope you're not proposing that as a model for anything. I have to agree with SabreBD, this kind of article instability in the middle of a GA review is disruptive, we should let consensus emerge before revising the thing. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 15:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

MacRusgail, to clarify, were you looking to add references for the recent additions over the next couple of days? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
An article on the visual arts which is almost entirely verbal is ridiculous. I haven't actually read right through the Aussie article, but just looking at it gives a far better overview of what art in Oz actually looks like, and doesn't just talk about it in an historical context.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC) p.s. I consider your use of the word "consensus" here as a euphemism for obscurantist bureaucracy.
Sorry to press you, MacRusgail, but are you going to support the additional material with references? I'll hang fire with the review if you are, but it would be good to know. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Where possible.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Please note that there are also some broken links which are nothing to do with me. I'm going to try and fix some, if I can.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Decorative arts[edit]

I notice another omission, namely the omission of metal working, pottery (incl. porcelain), glass working, jewellery etc

Sculpture is not well covered in this piece either.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine and decorative art belong to different classifications thanks, largely, to the institutional theory of art, there would need to be a compelling reason not to keep it that way. The only Scottish sculptors I can think of are the architectural ones such as Mossman, are they fine artists? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 19:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually there are dozens of Scottish sculptors. On Saturday I visited a studio which had at least six or seven working in there. None of them are notable, but there are a number who are, at least within Scotland, and a smaller number who are notable outwith Scotland such as Eduardo Paolozzi and Sandy Stoddart, whose sculptures can be found all over Edinburgh, and beyond.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC) p.s. I saw no specification that this article was purely about fine art. (Other than the lack of coverage of contemporary arts)
At GA level there should be some coverage of both fine and decorative art in an article that is called just "Scottish art", not Fine art of Scotland, even if most of the pretty deplorable series of national art articles we have don't do this. Welsh art and Art of the United Kingdom (both largely mine) do make an attempt at this. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Scottish Reformation[edit]

I tried to make a brief mention of this, but it was removed. Surely one of the most significant events in Scottish history leading to both the Scottish Enlightenment and our annexation by England. The impact upon the arts was tremendous, not only destroying much of what came before it, but limiting the subject matter that could be dealt with.

As late as the mid eighteenth century, John Home was hounded for his play Douglas, and I think a lot of subject matter e.g. nudes, religious representations etc must have been out of bounds for Scottish artists.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Reformation was already mentioned.--SabreBD (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Barely!!! Considering this is one of the most significant events in Scottish history, the way this article manages to scance straight from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, without mentioning this little event very much is a massive oversight.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
If you have some reliable sources then put it in.--SabreBD (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The article as it stands is a joke, and you continue to remove relevant material. This is not an article about the art history of Scotland, it is an article about art in Scotland, which happens to be a) living, and b) not just painting. As stated before, the historical section has massive oversights in it. Why isn't the Reformation dealt with properly?--MacRusgail (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Cliche cliche cliche[edit]

The article is much better, but...

  • Uses cliche images such as the overrated Skating Minister (of dubious origin and very corny) - other pictures are available.
  • There's a reason I put a picture of Aberdeen rather than Glasgow School of Art, i.e. to show something many people won't be aware of rather than reinforcing another cliche (a picture of that building). It also moves the article to a Central Belt bias.
  • Ignores the Scottish Renaissance, probably because it doesn't register much in Brit consciousness.
  • Statue of Hume is borderline cliche, maybe so (lies in tourist district), maybe not (of recent provenance)
  • Still woefully inadequate in the graphic sense - not only does it still lack picture but some have been removed.
  • Could do with a mention of Summerhall, the thing in Edinburgh right now, but leftfield.

I would like to move this article away from what people with a vague knowledge of Scottish Art might expect to see (that bloody minister and CRM's art school), and towards something which would broaden their knowledge base rather than reinforcing staid notions.-MacRùsgail (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, my last post was a bit negative (since vast improvements have been made - thank you for your efforts Sabre), but I think some points stand. I'm glad the Reformation's mentioned properly now. Its effects are still with us, culturally and otherwise.

Where now? A few suggestions:

  • Artists' colonies - Galloway, Pittenweem etc.
  • Video installations (I plead ignorance on this but it's a common form now)
  • More on stuff outside the Central Belt, e.g an Lanntair, DCA (arguably in the CB but still... Dundee), and galleries in Perth, Inverness etc.
  • Expat artists? Scots elsewhere as well as expats in Scotland.
  • Landscape art?
  • Textiles?

- MacRùsgail (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comments. I think all in the above list are valid points and things worth including, although how and where always is always a bit tricky. For colonies, textiles and other galleries it is probably mainly a matter of finding valid sources. Expats are also a good point if they can be found and, given the stated coverage of the article, there should be more "visitors" and "non-visitors" who have dealt with Scottish subjects. I did briefly experiment with reorganising the whole article around artistic forms (e.g. portraiture, history and landscape) rather than chronology, but it did not work, as I think the casual reader would struggle to understand what was happening when. This is partly why I started using more sub-headings, in the hope that it would be easier to pick out themes. I have also considered having a section at the end that dealt more with these issues (an idea I borrowed from the English art article), as long as it does not become repetitive, and would appreciate views on that.
Other things that I think still need expanding include the Celtic revival, and New Scottish School. I can also keep adding the names of contemporary artists indefinitely, but it is good to avoid this becoming just a list and so there needs to be some point to mentioning them. I am sure one will illustrate video art. The reason that the Scottish Renaissance does not get a huge write up is that the sources largely point to just two artists. It was after all, probably more significant in literature than visual art.
On image issues, to some extent a bit of cliche is not a bad think in an encyclopedia article, as the pictures are there to illustrate the text, which inevitably has to mention the traditional great works. I re-added the Skating Minister because there seemed to be a consensus for its return on this page and it is definitely better than the petrosphere that was here before, but I have no fixed views on it. I think that a major Scottish artwork should probably be in this position. I note that the top three Scottish works of art in the 2005 poll of interested parties were Little Sparta, Charles Rennie Mackintosh’s Glasgow School of Art and then the Minister. The tricky thing with Little Sparta is whether we have a picture that really sums it up, but if we do have one I would probably favour that. We could move the minister to the Romanticism section (especially is there is somewhere else to show a landscape lower down).
I am sure that Stoddart considers the Hume statue cutting edge rather than a cliche, but maybe it is not the best thing to illustrate the contemporary artists section. The problem here is that contemporary art tends to be copyright unless it is a photography of sculpture. I share the view expressed above on the Landform, or Earthworks picture that it is unclear. However, I notice that there are several good photographs of work by David Mach on commons here, and one of those might fit the bill.--SabreBD (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The scope is definitely better than it was two years ago, and it's become a respectable article. (Better than some other Scottish cultural coverage such as theatre)

Regarding images, I have found Geograph a useful resource for Scottish island articles, and small towns, and have transferred some images to the commons from it. It's better for rural areas (long story), but we might be able to get exterior shots of galleries, scuptures, murals etc off it (no paintings unfortunately). We just need a list of what and where. I've a hunch Little Sparta might be on there. If you haven't seen Geograph, check it out.-MacRùsgail (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do.--SabreBD (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
No more "exterior shots of galleries" please - the most boring way of illustrating an article. But otherwise the article is improving hugely - great stuff! Now there are so many refs at least the repeated ones should really be moved in a "references" section. We have http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Little_Sparta, though they aren't ideal. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather see an exterior shot than another picture of that bloody minister!!! Was walking down the Mound the other day, and he's all over the place. -MacRùsgail (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with a better replacement, though some cliched images have a big fan following. The article could do with more images generally - I use mini-galleries, as at Sculpture, Medieval art or Art of the United Kingdom. Then you could put him there. He is very well known, but few remember his name, & some people looking for him probably end up here. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It might be best to hold fire on the image for a bit. I think the text can still use a bit of expansion, which would mean more space for pictures. Then we can take a look at the image situation overall. I am increasingly in favour of a Little Sparta picture in the lead, but drew a blank on Georgraph. My preference of the available is the one at the bottom of the Little Sparta page, but would welcome views of that. I would still like to keep the minister in somewhere. You may have learned to hate him but it is a significant image.--SabreBD (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the issues raised here have been resolved so I have renominated for GA review.--SabreBD (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)