Template talk:Infobox artist

Recent changes

There have been a flurry of changes to the template recently, and problems of various kinds have arisen. The template has been stable for a long time and is in use in many articles. I have reverted it back to a state when it was working fine.[1]

Changes should not be made to such a high visibility template until they have been discussed properly and consensus reached for content, and, for technical matters, tested properly in a sandbox.

There has been a rationale of bringing it in line with Infobox scientist. That is not necessarily a reason to change Infobox artist. The addition of a signature parameter has not got consensus and is already in dispute at Vincent van Gogh. There is no reason for the hide feature for the "Influenced" and "Influenced by" as these sections are not in practice over-populated (and I would argue should anyway be restricted to the minimum essential names). Additionally hide features are discouraged because of problems with printing out the article.

Let's start again, and make sure any changes are examined and agreed. In particular the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts need to be involved, as they are the ones who use the Infobox all the time, and know what needs to be in it. Post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts to notify of any discussions here.

Ty 19:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. People should bear in mind that very many VA editors dislike these boxes anyway, & if they give any trouble they are liable to just be removed from articles. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, I spent a couple of hours messing around with image sizes in infoboxes yesterday, now they are adding absurd signature facsimiles to the boxes as well....Modernist (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, too much difficulty with this recently. And thanks to Modernist for correcting images and infoboxes, a task which should be covered here [2]. JNW (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Website not shown on example

I note that Website is available as an entry, but it is not shown in the example or definitions on the page for {{Infobox artist}} GloverEpp (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The documentation was just generally incongruous with the current state of the template. I've updated it to match the present status of the code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Signature Parameter

I was thinking of adding a signature parameter, because I believe it would be of value to the articles.--MaximilianT (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would a sample of the artist's signature be of value to the article? Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There are similar parameters at infobox person, writer and philosopher. They exist to familiarize the reader with the subject. Why shouldn't the reader be able to observe the subject's signature?--MaximilianT (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems hokey. We are talking about visual artists, primarily, right? Their work is their work, not their "signature." A signature serves to authenticate something, doesn't it? We should be concentrating on the work of art. I think the signature just serves as a distraction. And the presence of the signature I think trivializes the work itself. Do we only think the art is "good" because it is authentic? Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it trivializes it, because the same parameter exists on 3 other templates and hasn't trivialized any part of the content. This parameter is already being used in other similar, so it should be also used on this one. --MaximilianT (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

But this has to do with visual art. The signature is a visual entity, is it not? I think the one is equated with the other, in the reader's thinking. I think this association of the signature with the art, is an unfortunate association, and can be avoided by not including a sample of the signature. Also — the signature changes over time. What is the significance of the particular "snapshot" of a signature? Bus stop (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that this parameter was added before, but was subsequently removed. It has been requested that any proposed changes be publicized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. See also Template talk:Infobox artist/Archive 1#Signature Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has so far been clearly against the signature for a wide variety of reasons, this discussion has been going on for a long time...Modernist (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't mind discussing this, because it is my opinion that the desire for the signature reflects a very common misunderstanding that the authenticity of the artwork is of very great importance. And I think this overlooks the great importance of looking and thinking that is incumbent on any viewer of the visual arts. In short — we have to think for ourselves. The signature is not there to tell us what to think. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support the addition of a signature parameter. First, encyclopedia articles on artists clearly have to do with a lot more than the visual aspects of their work; otherwise they would consist of nothing but pictures of their work. Forget biographical info, etc. Second, anyone who thinks that the signature is not a highly significant component of an artist's artistic identity should simply look at the price difference between signed and unsigned works; if Wikipedia were concerned purely with art and not with authenticity and market value of art, then notability would be a pretty difficult concept to employ. - Wormcast (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if a signature had a place in an article, why would it be in an infobox? Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a reasonable question. One consideration is standardization: the signature parameter is included in Template:Infobox_Person, the default bio template, as well as in Template:Infobox_Writer and Template:Infobox_Fashion_Designer, the only other fundamentally visual/written works bio templates derived from Person. Another is that the signature is a concise, unique, important, identifying piece information, and as such is a natural candidate for a quick summary structure such as an infobox. If not signatures, then why, for instance, photographs of artists? I would think that photos of artists have substantially less to do with their respective bodies of work than their signatures, and yet are included. - Wormcast (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a different type of field than the other fields in the info-box, with the exception of the photograph or other type of image of the artist. In my opinion it should be in the article's space when an editorial decision is made to include it.

A lot of artists nowadays don't sign artworks. And I think critical thinking downplays individual importance of artists (as might be suggested by the highlighting of the signature) since perhaps the advent of postmodernism. I don't necessarily agree with this. But I think the presence of a signature in an info-box would almost look anachronistic, or dated. This is obviously just my opinion. Thanks for your thoughtful response to my posed question.

Also, the photograph of the artist I think is of ongoing interest for reasons not necessarily connected to the art. From the signature little can be derived, except perhaps by such disciplines as handwriting analysis. But people (readers) are notoriously proficient at extracting meaning from almost any visual clue provided in the actual image of the person. Hair length, dress style, expression of facial features, "racial" indications — these and more are all indicated in many photographs. The reader is naturally curious about the subject of the article. A signature I think is far less revealing artifact relating to the individual being written about. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Signature reproduction may require copyright permission. Signature is the artist’s property. Up to the 19th century signing was not popular. E.g.: JMW Turner rarely signed his work. He signed the work for special request. It has been frequently found that incorrect works were baring forged signatures. The provenance of the work is the most critical part in identification. Therefore the provenance of the images e.g.: property of the artist, specified museum collection or private collection etc., are significant proofs of authenticity. (Salmon1 (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Spouse

Hey there,

I added this one, figured I'd seen it in other infoboxes (person, writer), so it sounded useful as a general thing. Feel free to discuss restoring it or leaving it off. BOZ (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we are better off without it. The nature of most artist biographies rarely if ever discuss a spouse - either male or female. From before the renaissance through today the very rare exception might mention a husband or a wife. Thank you for your proposal however...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just 2¢, but generally "spouse" seems to be a field that should be limited to "celebrity" templates. The justification there being the spouse is also famous or the marriage is part of the celebrity.

Beyond that... the few cases I can think of for an artist or writer is when the spouses collaborate. At that point, the spouse can be listed one of the influence fields. - J Greb (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lee Krasner is discussed in the lede at Jackson Pollock because of the important relationship that they had in life and in their work, but it is the exception...Modernist (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And that would be case where cross listing them under "influenced by/influenced" in both infoboxes would make sense. - J Greb (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think if it finds a place in a well-written article then mention of the spouse is a natural thing. I don't think an infobox should have a field for spouse. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Colour code

Is there any specific code for the bgcolour parameter similar to the musical artist box? I can't find any instruction how to use it here other than "you can change it." If there is no purpose for that parameter at all, why not simply hardcode it to default blue? De728631 (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In the process of converting this into an {{infobox}} I've simply removed the parameter as arbitrary and of no clear illustrative or informational purpose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Who removed the color bar? It was long agreed upon - return it please, thank you...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, no: it was long argued over, which eventually simmered down without an identifiable conclusion. As De728631 says, it is ill-defined and seemingly serves no demonstrable informational value; such arbitary colour bars are becoming less common on Wikipedia, and the style used at {{infobox artwork}} seems to have been uncontroversial. What purpose does the colour bar serve? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)