Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts:


Source and artist of painting of Alexander, Bucephalus and Diogenes?[edit]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Source and artist of painting of Alexander, Bucephalus and Diogenes? -- Jeandré, 2011-06-02t17:38z

Greetings from GLAM-Wiki US[edit]

Invitation to join GLAM-Wiki US

Hello! This WikiProject aligns closely with the work of the GLAM-Wiki initiative (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums), a global community of volunteers who assist cultural institutions with sharing resources with Wikimedia. GLAM-Wiki US is a new community initiative focused on organizing cultural collaborations within the United States. GLAM organizations are diverse and span numerous topics, from libraries and art museums to science centers and historic sites. We currently have a backlog of interested institutions- and we need your help!

1rightarrow.pngAre you interested in helping with current or future GLAM projects? Join→ Online Volunteers

We hope you'll join the growing GLAM-Wiki community in the US. Thank you!
-Lori Phillips (Talk), US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator
For more information visit→ The GLAM:US portal or GLAM-Wiki on Outreach

Peer review Museum de Oude Wolden[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editør (talkcontribs) 12:19, 25 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Titling movements MOS[edit]

Most art movements have been capitalized on Wikipedia almost as if by default, only I would like to see what that default is because I haven't found it, only MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine which to me suggests lower-case is in order. I just want to know what's right! Nonc01 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Caps are most often used...Modernist (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course, but is it correct, more importantly. Nonc01 (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is a right or wrong way. The norm in the English speaking art world is definitely to write movements with Caps (rather than like this: impressionism). However, in French they are written in lower case (as many other words). Coldcreation (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
According to MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine there is definitely a right and wrong way, though, and I'm not interested in doing it the populous wrong way based on generalizations unrelated to Wikipedia. There has been similar illuminations this year about uppercase vs. lowercase in sidebars, which ironically enough at the time I disputed a situation with someone where I wanted the caps simply because it looked right to me. But I've come to realize I was wrong...which makes the lowercase, when objectively called for by Wikipedia, look a lot better to me. Nonc01 (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You need to check here: WP:VAMOS...Modernist (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The section itself raises possibilities and makes no definitive caps style claims. None! A non-updated graveyard of dead links to questionable sources anyway. The bottom of the section neutralizes the top and indicates delegation to dictionary and Wikipedia MOS. You may want to request comment on the busy general board though Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters, but I doubt they refute their own MOS. Nonc01 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The language at MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine is pretty unambiguous. It seems that—as suggested in this essay—the preference for lower case derives from the premise that "the most reliable sources on how to capitalize, italicize, hyphenate or otherwise style the name of a subject or its subtopics in a general-interest work like an encyclopedia are reliable works on style and grammar in English broadly, not just in the specialty at issue." And it is certainly true that The Chicago Manual of Style, the Oxford English Dictionary, Webster's Unabridged and the like favor lower case for most art movements. For example, The Chicago Manual of Style recommends lower case for art deco, baroque, cubism, fauvism, impressionism, etc. (the very few exceptions include Dadaism/Dada, Gothic, Hudson River school, Pre-Raphaelite, Romanesque; romanticism is "sometimes capitalized to avoid ambiguity"). Encyclopedia Britannica uses upper case for many of these.
WP:VAMOS is more favorable to upper case than MOS:DOCTCAPS, and is part of Wikipedia's MOS. On the other hand, our VA Featured Articles apparently always use lower case (except with broader terms like Renaissance). Ewulp (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually we do have several FA that use caps...Modernist (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right; I posted the above after checking about a dozen articles and finding no support for my own position (I like upper case). Further investigation shows that Las Meninas and The Blind Leading the Blind capitalize Baroque; The Raft of the Medusa capitalizes Romantic, Neoclassical, and Realist; The Battle of Alexander at Issus has Romanticism (also German Expressionism, but it's part of a quote); The Garden of Earthly Delights has Surrealists; Funerary art has Baroque and Neo-Classicism. El Greco has Mannerism, Impressionism, Symbolists, Expressionism but also German expressionist, abstract expressionist, baroque, and Cubism in the lede but cubism in the body of the article. Ukiyo-e uses upper case for Impressionist, Post-Impressionist, and Art Nouveau. So if FAs are our guide to best practices—and they should be—it is clear that flexibility is allowed in this matter, depending on local consensus. Ewulp (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I was going to say - in my experience they almost always use caps, as they should. But when a movement name becomes a general style term, usually later, things may change. Thus there are Realists and realists, Romantics and romantics, Neo-classical and neo-classical, and so on. But eg Cubist, Impressionist & Abstract Expressionist should always be capitalized (or maybe are being mis-used), and generally any -ism should be. The WP:VAMOS section (which I wrote) seems clear and correct, even if the source it originally used is apparently no longer online (as it has been updated to say). If Nonc01 wants it kept simple, then USE CAPS! Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would think that lower case/upper case hinges on how the term is being used, which in turn hinges on how a good source is using the term. I think Geometric abstraction, Abstract art, Hard-edge painting, and Lyrical abstraction could be either capitalized or not. I think it depends on how the source is using the term. When the term is being used in an effort to describe artwork in words—then I don't think capitalization is appropriate. It depends on the intentions of the source. If we are using internal links to any of these terms, but we are not intending to imply that the artworks are a part of such a movement, assuming such a movement exists, we should probably make clear by surrounding wording that we are merely describing appearance without implying membership in any such group. These are merely my own opinions. Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New York Watercolor Club / Society[edit]

I would like to start an article about the New York Watercolor Club, but I've seen it's name (unless there's more than one organization here) the following ways:

  • New York Watercolor Club (see SI Collection - name used 1935-1938) - used in 7 WP articles
  • New York Watercolor Society - used in 3 WP articles
  • New York Water Color Club (see SI Collections) - used in 14 WP articles
  • New York Water Color Society - used in 1 WP article

Are there any opinions about 1) whether these are all meant to represent the same organization (for instance, maybe New York Water Color Society is a branch of American Watercolor Society, but I've not been able to find anything to make that connection)? 2) what name should be used for the article?

Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My advice is to pick the one you like and create redirects for ALL of the others. This will increase findability for external readers as well as all Wiki(p/m)edians. O and I totally agree that we need that article badly. Jane (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
There may have been more than one organization, or they may have had more than one name. If you don't have sources to clarify this, you won't safely get far with the article, I would suggest. I wouldn't worry too much about what Wikipedia articles say - hit google books. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! It seems that the best title is New York Watercolor Club - it seems that the 2 word Water Color was used in the late 19th century and shifted to one word sometime in the 20th century, born out by info from the two Smithsonian Institution links.
I'm thrown by the use of "Society" - but I like the idea of having redirects to the article, which may spark someone to speak up if there is a distinction. (Previous research of source info showed club is used more than society.)
Thanks, Jane and John, that helps a lot!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

People who make images "not suck"[edit]


I don't know if you're already familiar with this group or not, but after seeing a Wikipedia ad on my page for The graphics lab, I submitted a request Please help make "Grandma Moses" images "not suck" (phrase from the ad). (The article is currently under GA review.) I looked in commons at the "before" version of some of their work - and they are incredible.

Perhaps some project members have images in articles that they'd like spruced up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a great project, and its members very helpful. However, I've disabled that animated gif, of text, which breaches our own and international standard guidelines for accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree in general, but having taken a look at what they get up to I'm concerned that some of their work is creating truely horrible fake colourised versions of b/w originals. These should not be used in articles, or done as part of WP at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that input. I don't know if the colourisation was a "special request" or not. They made some changes to Images of two Grandma Moses that I don't think are an issue. Your input is helpful about how far NOT to take it!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A new article needs a lot of help[edit]

A new by a brand new editor about paper lace artist Hina Aoyama needs a lot of help to get it up to standard, it is written in rather poor English and contains quite a lot of puffery. The subject appears to be genuinely notable so deletion is not really an option. (BTW paper lace is a redlink, but Paper Lace is about a band. I never knew there was more to it than cheap machine made paper doilies or kindergarten "crafts", it's an actual art form!) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The initial clean-up has been done - and papercutting is the correct article about the art form. Interested editors are nevertheless welcome to help improve the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I have redirected paper lace to papercutting even though the latter article covers a much broader topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Heinz Braun[edit]

I just approved it and moved it to the mainspace. I would be delighted if someone could give it a look and assure me that he's notable. Although few good refs, it seemed overwhelmingly likely that he is. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I will add some comments to the article talk page... but one thing is that aside from the attribution to the German article, there is just one source for the article, at that's a biography page from a website in the deceased artist's name. Not the only way, but for me a key way, of determining notability is whether there is much written in books, magazines or newspapers about the subject of the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wanted: Articles for sculptures, monuments and memorials in London[edit]

Following is a list of sculptures, monuments and memorials without Wikipedia articles. User:Ham and I have put this list together and we believe the links below reflect the most appropriate article titles based on naming conventions. I have been creating many articles for London artworks since my recent visit to the city, but I welcome other editors to please assist with the creation of these articles to help improve the encyclopedia.

All help welcome! ----Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Preference for images w/wo frames[edit]


Is there a preference about whether images should/should not include the frame (example: Susanna Paine, third image)?

I didn't see anything in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts, so it's probably not a big deal - my preference would probably be to crop out the frame, but it would be good to get input before I do that.

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carole, I agree with your preference. If up to me, would always crop away the frame, except in cases where it's obviously an integral part of the work - such as some of the pointillist frames I've seen, or the hand-worked frames of Charles Prendergast, etc. I think frames in a photo often seem more distracting than enhancing. - Xenxax (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, cool - I definitely get your point about the pointillist frames. That makes lots of sense to me, Xenxax. Thanks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking also - being guided by a "manual of style" of general practice - that most art books very rarely include the frame in a photo of a painting. - Xenxax (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Good point! I made the change and it does look much better.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Carole. The third Susanna Paine painting looks much better without the frame - a good decision. An excellent and interesting page too ... you did an amazing amount of work on it today, really improved it immensely! - Xenxax (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it's been a fun one to work on. It's so rare to see a stub - where there is so much great source material - and such a great life story. It's still a work-in-progress -- and probably desperately needs copyediting (which is easier for me when I get all the pieces and parts in) -- but I'm getting there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice: Utamaro's Three Beauties of the Present Day—Featured Article Candidate[edit]

I've nominated for Featured Article the article for the ukiyo-e print Three Beauties of the Present Day by Utamaro. Please come participate in the review! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Newsflash – Leonardo was straight[edit]

There have been five hundred years of scholarly uncertainty on the matter, but finally a user has determined definitively that Leonardo da Vinci was heterosexual. His proof? Leonardo wrote the following:

"The bat, by reason of its unbridled lewdness, does not follow any natural law in pairing, but male goes with male, female with female, as they chance to find themselves together."

I've already reverted the user for what I consider to be a ridiculous bit of original research at best, and they, of course, reverted back. Rather than me reverting again, I'd prefer someone else to take care of it, so they'll see that it's not just me disagreeing about this matter. Here's a link to the edit (which you'll have to "undo" rather than "revert", since there's been an additional edit since then). Thanks, MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted. The cite being used as definitive is nonsense. Cheezus, now I remember why left. Thanks for spotting this, Mandarax. JNW (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, JNW. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 02:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lamentation of Christ by Mary and John[edit]

Dear art experts: This old AfC submission is about a painting by a famous painter, but the article has problems. It's unsourced and the text is essay-like. Is this something that should be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Illustrators workgroup/project?[edit]

Anybody interested in collaborating on a project or workgroup on illustrators? Category:Illustrators and its subcategories are well-populated, but not terriby well organised, and there are significant illustrators awaiting articles (I've recently added Margery Gill and Anthony Colbert), and no doubt lots of articles need improving. Obviously it's a broad field and would benefit from the attention of as many knowledgeable people as possible. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reactionary artist?[edit]


I came across the following statement about late 19th century / early 20th century artist Emily Sartain:

"In contrast to her progressive political views, Emily Sartain was a reactionary artist. She expressed herself in the foreign idioms of European painting and genre scenes."

If it helps, I found it on this page. What do you think "reactionary artist" means in this context? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Just very conservative and reliant on European models - "reactionary" might be thought over-doing it somewhat. The linked page explains it ok I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I just wanted to make sure it didn't mean more than that... for instance, I was side-tracked by Reactionary modernism... which I knew didn't fit but made me question "reactionary". Thanks much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)