**Thank you again for your interest in my life. Creativity takes many forms. Where one smells stench, others may discern earnest attempts at understanding. Besides, one is not above bored hackiness. Hmm, that could be my new username. [[User:JNW|JNW]] ([[User talk:JNW|talk]]) 16:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
**Thank you again for your interest in my life. Creativity takes many forms. Where one smells stench, others may discern earnest attempts at understanding. Besides, one is not above bored hackiness. Hmm, that could be my new username. [[User:JNW|JNW]] ([[User talk:JNW|talk]]) 16:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
**Me speaks of life in a broader sense. as I am not interested in yours, per se (such arrogance you have to assume such). I am interested in keeping you out of my life and leaving my history to the experts. [[User:Whistlersghost|Whistlersghost]] ([[User talk:Whistlersghost|talk]]) 16:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Whistlersghost
== Pearl Buck illustrators ==
== Pearl Buck illustrators ==
Revision as of 16:34, 29 November 2007
Crispin and Scapin, Honore Daumier. An appropriate, if slightly sinister, image for a talk page.Not the type of talk generally encouraged here.Edit wars over intellectual content can become far too intense.The ideal tone of communication between wikipedia contributors.
Sickert
Thanks for your generous comment. I hope you will be able to contribute to some of the art articles here - which are often sorely in need of attention! Editors with a sentitivity to painting are sorely needed. Paul B11:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Morris Weiss
Very kind of you to say. You'll see from my user page that I have a great respect and admiration for the pioneers who made this field happen. As soon as I get a chance I'll be expanding your dad's bio; the Alter Ego interview is so long it's been daunting me, but I've been wanting to glean info from it. I'll let you know when I do.
Glad to see you've registered, and here are a few good links for newcomers:
If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Hi, I'm glad that you were impressed with Wikipedia after hearing reading about it in the New Yorker--I just wanted to take a moment to welcome you, as Tenebrae also did, and encourage you to stay and be part of the community. You seem to be a very good writer, and so I'm sure you will find some very interesting and very satisfying projects to work on. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Happy editing ! AdamBiswanger114:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me again - funny how most analysis of ingres are fairly dry, espc. considering how rich and suggestive a painter he was. I'd like to do some work on this article fairly soon, but anyway, keep up the good work you're doing Coil0002:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably most viewers don't get past the polish and control of his surfaces, which don't exactly inspire florid prose. Yet he was a tremendous draftsman and portraitist--the painting of Bertin, a grumpy toad, is one of my favorite portraits of the 19th century.
Wow, that edit feels like it was a long time ago... Basically, disambiguation notices are helpful when two topics have the same or a similar name, so they should always be used whenever remotely appropriate. As for the mention in popular culture, in general pop culture sections should have more that one entry, so it's okay to have the Arrested Development show listed twice on that article for style reasons. Also, a lot of people never actually see the disambiguation notice, especially when they immediately find what they're looking for, so a second writeup could be helpful. If more pop culture references turn up, though, if it ever comes time to trim the pop culture section, go ahead and strip it out. Captainktainer * Talk13:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguations are actually necessary, because of the way Wikipedia search works. For instance, let's say that I'm an editor who doesn't know how Wikipedia works. I type in "Mona Lisa" into the search box, looking for the song by Nat King Cole. The search box immediately brings me to the painting, and I go "Why didn't I think of that?" Then I try searching again, but because "Mona Lisa" is the exact match for the name, I only get the painting again. Without the disambiguation notice, it can take up to seven pages (depending on how you're doing the search) before you finally get to where you want to go. With disambiguation, it takes one or two (if the disambiguation notice links to a disambiguation page). Captainktainer * Talk13:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those fingers! And the ruffel of his coat. I tought it quite a witty parody, just wanted to share with another Ingres admirer - Coil0000:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Editor's Barnstar
For diligence in removing spam links, redundancies, and other unnecessary accretions from artists' biographies, I award you this Editor's Barnstar. —Celithemis00:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Augustus John
I would prefer to email you about this if you don't mind. Thanks for having the good grace of openly admitting I might have had a point; I admire that and you have been extremely civil about my comments, which again is most creditable; I'm sorry if I seemed rude it was not my intention. However, the 2 users who have 'weighed in' in your favour, well one has a history of only doing deletions of bad wiki articles, as far as I can tell, and fair enough, and the other has spent the last 2 motnhs editing an article about Cannabis. Neither know a great deal about art! Frankly that impresses me very little. In other words, reagrdless of what they say, I am not impressed by their wiki track record of adding good stuff and by comparison I can see that you and me have certainly been very active in adding good stuff to this site. Therefore, I would suggest it's down to you and me to sort this matter out. Maybe you will be happy to remove the worst links and leave at that? I would accept that proposal. It is a pity links cannot be amalgamated into a sub-page...But just let me know when you have made your mind up...I hope this is an acceptable solution. best regards Peter morrell18:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be most helpful to have some feedback from you soon about the changes I made and the proposed pics being added to the article. I hope that things are now amicably resolved between us and that no hard feelings are left. I am now quite happy with the outcome. I sincerely hope you are too. best regards Peter morrell19:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your short note and good wishes; I reckon I learned a lot from that episode and will be more cautious from now on about just adding links to articles willynilly, so your comments struck a chord and have been most helpful. I hope my comments were useful to you too. best regards. Peter morrell17:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am just starting a new page. You seem to be knowledgeable on art of the late 19th century. You are welcome to make any revisions on my Haystacks (Monet) page. I have a long way to go. I was wondering if there is a category for Series Paintings. This is my second Series (Campbell's Soup Cans). I am also wondering if the term series is a serious enough art term to deserve mention on the Series dab page. I am an art hack who has never studied formally. I have never painted. I attend about 3-5 exhibits a year though. TonyTheTiger18:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly welcome to make any collaborative changes you feel are proper and necessary. In addition to being untrained, I am now distracted by my newfound wikitemplate making skill. I will probably spend a little time each day with Haystacks, but it will be a slow work in progress. When you look at the code on the edit page you will find each title contains all the info the source webpage attached to the photo. I have found some titles with distinct photos and am becoming confused on whether I am confused or some other webmasters are confusing photos. I have to get some authoritive books. My Library has several Tucker books. If you go to www.chipublib.org. >> search our catalogue >> advance search option >> put "Paul Hayes Tucker" in the Author keyword and type search you will see my choices. Do you know which of these I should be asking for. I will place a hold if you can give me further direction and have it forwarded to my local branch, The (Blackstone Library).TonyTheTiger16:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far I have only found Monet texts that were at my local Borders. I sat down for an hour or 2 with them and gleaned some knowledge that is on my current article. P.S. If you know where I can find a complete set of the 25 1890 Harvest Haystack images that are properly labelled that would be of great assistance. Also, I probably want to add the 5 1888 Harvest Haystacks and their images. TonyTheTiger01:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re: Degas
Thanks for the nice compliment on the Degas article. And it's only right to commend you right back--I've noticed your edits over the last few months and you've raised the quality of everything you've worked on. WP art-related articles in general have come a long way in the last year (with some conspicuous laggards--the Picasso article barely mentions his work!) Ewulp04:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many museums attribute all sorts of trash to Giorgione. Usually it is their wishful thinking which is not generally shared by the scholarly community. You may search for Giorgione on the website of the Hermitage Museum if you want examples. With portraits, the problem is even more more complicated. Nobody can be sure whether a high-quality Venetian portrait from the 1510s was painted by Titian, Giorgione, Lotto, or perhaps Sebastiano del Piombo. Furthermore, I'm not aware of Venetian self-portraits before Titian. --Ghirla-трёп-17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the reference to Rodin and working on the article. I'm being fussy (and you're welcome to be also) because I'm maybe building toward a featured article attempt. Any help you can provide, especially on the "big-picture" aspects of Rodin (influences, influence, style) would be great. But I see you're on a break. Hope it's not related to this article... –Outriggr§05:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Camille vs. Camille
Try a force-reload of the page -- shift-F5 or ctrl-F5, depending on your browser. I restored the correct image, but the Monet portrait may still be stuck in your browser's cache. —Celithemis05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haystacks
Thanks for helping cleanup Haystacks (Monet). I have just begun learning about peer review, good articles, and featured articles. My first feedback has taught me that I am eventually going to have to reaquire all my sources and properly cite them inline in many of my articles. I have begun overhauling my other series article (Campbell's Soup Cans). If you get a chance, you may want to use inline citations like I have begun to do there. I am not sure if things are in the proper format there, but most FAs seem to use a method similar to this. If you still have the source you added it would be great if you could cite the information from it properly. In the future I plan to add the following to the code for the article: TonyTheTiger16:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a good eye for these images. You may be aware I have been having difficulty identifying and selecting between duplicate images. If you get a chance you should look at my alternate images page. Be careful on what you delete and what you move, but I trust your judgement. TonyTheTiger21:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michelangelo spam
03:18, 3 January 2007 JNW (Talk | contribs) (rv spam links out the waz (sp?); many replete with advertsing, some selling products, some inexpert blogs, and some theorists--and more should probably go, too.)
Please advise why? This website is a collection of articles about 'Great Italians' and does not offer any advertising or selling of products.
Wikipedia currently links to several other pages within this website.
I deleted the link to the website 'Great Italians' because, contrary to your claim, its pages are filled with paid advertisements--I counted ten running down the left- hand side of the page on Michelangelo--and are as strongly devoted to commerce as scholarship. Before creating a link, please check with Wikipedia guidelines regarding external links, WP:EL. Also, please sign your messages. JNW04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am asthonished you did not move the information to Rembrandt. Besides, I think, the article on Rembrandt is way too long, and my information was quite informative. I did not want to start new articles on Titus or Hendrickje, but now i have. I am sad you did not appriciate my extensions Taksen18:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree not all the information was not Saskia, but as i said before, the article on Rembrandt is very long. I got almost a headache, when reading it, too much information, not easy to digest. So I tried to tell something about Rembrandt through Saskia. It is a lot of work to start new lemma's on Hendrickje, Geertje and Titus. I was trying to be efficient. Besides, tell me who your friends are, I will tell you who you are, dont you agree? Taksen18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. What you describe does not sound very efficient, and has less to do with improving the encyclopedia than with adding information, wherever there might be space. JNW18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica
Citing Britannica should be fine. In an ideal world, everything would be cited directly to scholarly sources rather than to an encyclopedia, but short of the Featured Article Candidates process, I doubt anyone's going to complain about it unless it conflicts with other sources. It's a good place to start. —Celithemis04:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, since you're about, any thoughts on this? No one ever seems to visit the page, but things are beginning to stir there. Johnbod02:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; maybe put something on the page at some point, if only to get it on your watchlist (if its not) - there finally seem to be signs of activity there, which is good, but few of the editors one sees round the pages are to be seen there. Few of us are natural team-players perhaps, compared to some areas, but I think if we aren't involved others will just run "the project". There is stuff higher up about info-boxes; I think I may want to do a "Grand Declaration of local editor's freedom to choose to have them or not" soon! All the best Johnbod03:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - my fault for leaving an edit open for a hour or so when I knew you were around! All ok now. I find I'm adding a lot of minor names, when I know lots of major ones aren't in the printmaking categories - so your contributions are very helpful. I'm done now, so if you were going to, please carry on Johnbod01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Veronese
Nice job on Veronese, and much-needed. Last time I checked (January) there was almost nothing there. Today I was flipping through Paintings in the Louvre & thought of adding L. Gowing's remarks about the artist to the article--you got there ahead of me! Ewulp09:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Belle Époque
Thanks for the revert on Belle Époque. To give some heft to the article, I have substanially re-written it. The subject matter is very much the same. (The revert wasn't in vain!) But I think that the organization and flow of the article is now better. I think the article conveys the sense that this was Europe-wide phenomenon with clearly definable characteristics (general political stability, increasing class-based identities, tremendous technological/scientific advances leading to modern life as we know it, creation of what we recognize as modern artistic forms). Also, the body of the article now reflects the three main topics that were presented in the introductory paragraph(s), namely politics, science, and art. I hope that it won't be continually vandalized. Poldy Bloom05:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sistine Chapel ceiling
Thanks for your edits. I'm afraid I was much more ruthless than you. But I have left a mention and an expanded footnote.
Thank you for the thank you, and good work on John Singer. He would profit from further expansion of content (I'd like to flesh it out more one day), yet given the outline, headings, image links, and cites, he might merit a 'B' rating now. What do you think? JNW21:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I don't know if that Sargent works list is representative of his work, but it's a start. I'd like to include an image of one his landscapes, but I'm not sure which. Any suggestions? The article could use expansion for sure. Whether it is a "Class B", I don't know, as I've not studied the criteria and am not likely to. I'm more inclined to add to or copyedit articles than rate them. :)
I think that most of the paintings on the list are prominent works, and include a good sampling of noteworthy portraits. Carnation, Lily, etc, On His Holidays and The Chess Game offer a limited window into his subject pictures (I became familiar with The Chess Game, one of his prime Orientalist subjects, a few years ago, when it was still owned by the Harvard Club of NYC, and I was visiting while painting a portrait commission for the club). That said, I am not sure that the list should attempt to represent him fully, out of concern that the lists tend to take on lives of their own. But yes, it does make sense to include a pure landscape or two: You can't go wrong with most any of the late Venetian watercolors, nor the Venetian interiors of the 1880s, like The Sulphur Match and Venetian Interior (Carnegie Museum of Art); Home Fields (Detroit Institute of Arts) is a fine and well-known oil; Oyster Gatherers at Cancale (Corcoran Gallery of Art) is not my favorite, but a famous early landscape; also, there are some really fine paintings done at the Simplon Pass in the Italian Alps, the most popular of which feature women and men lounging and painting at leisure, but my favorites done there are oils of water spilling through the rocky landscape, wonderful planes seen in blinding sunlight. But these are just suggestions which should in no way limit your search. Have fun and good luck, JNW04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I thought about how lists tend to grow before I made the works into a list. Hopefully this one will remain a representative sampling. Who owns The Chess Game now? --sparkitTALK13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see from my last note how a list can grow: you asked about landscapes, and I went off about other subjects as well...the result of enthusiasm. And yes, I think you have made it a most representative sample. Good work.
I believe The Chess Game was sold to a private party, for an undisclosed but vigorous price. The HCNY still owns a batch of Sargent portraits. JNW15:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sistine Chapel ceiling
Thanks for your comments! Yes, I'm very interested in the way that Michelangelo depicted God. "Awesome!", as my evangelical nephew would say.
The only things that I know of that come anywhere near the power of the "image" that Michelangelo gave God are the Christ Pantocrator at Daphni, the hypnotic God in the Baptistry at Padua by Giusto da Menabuoi and that huge figure which might be by Cimabue in the Baptistry at Florence. There's not a lot of space there, so it looms over you in a terrifying manner with no room for escape. There's a good one at Monreale as well but more gentle. Does one draw a distinction between the persons of the Trinity? I'd like to read your paper. Was it published?
Also, what a great portrait that is on your User Page! Well done. How about a self portrait as well?
The final (First day of Creation) image is surely Michelangelo himself, working on the ceiling in the supreme act of creation. I found a website the other day that supported this vview, but I've lost it. The beard is shorter, the face is almost hidden, the figure is workingg aboovve his head.
As for God creating the Earth, Sun and Moon, the wrathful God has mmuch in common with the Moses for Pope Julius' tomb. It has been said before that Michelangelo represented the Pope as God. Well, iif so, it's an image more in keeping with thhe man who said "Show me with a sword; I know nothing of books!"
As for the creationn of Adam, there's much more of a benvolence in that picture. I've always loved the hand of God which is so square and capabable but hhas delicate fingertips. Its the hand of a man who not only pounded the clay and modelled it to make the man but who also wired the circuits of his brain.
There's been a study done on Michelangelo's David which indicates that he was almost certainly a stone mason. Several of the models on the ceiling have similar characteristics. What we see in the forearm of Michelangelo's God is the massive development consistent with using a hammer and chisel, in particular the bulge just near the wrist which is the abductor pollicus longus which brings the hand forward in relation to the forearm and is used when hammering in a controlled way (cobbler's tacks as against six inch nails). I'm sure we are looking at Michelangelo's own arm here. But I can't really say this, can I? I'm sure it falls under the category of original research!
Well perhaps I'll give this an airing on the comments page and see what comments it brings. I'll also track down some of the other images of God for you.
In quite a lot of late Medieval/Early Renaissance images there is no distinction between God the Creator and God Incarnate so that when God is shown in the Creation stories, he looks just like Jesus in the Redemption episodes, the only difference being that he is often given a triangular halo as against Jesus' triple-rayed halo which symbolises the cross as well as the Trinity. God appears like this in the frescoes at San Gimigniano. There is another picture of the Trinity somewhere... I think a Jesuit statement...which shows the triune God as three identical Jesus-persons all enthroned side-by-side. Rather intimidating...I'd hate to get up there and have the three of them arguing over where to send me. I wonder if there's a wikipage devoted to depictions of God.
Interesting! I just took a look at the Doni Tondo. There IS a link with the Lybian Sibyl. They are both quite extraordinarily dynamic and daring images. The Blessed Virgin even shows her armpit.
I also checked out God dividing the waters from the heavens. You're right.
My observation of the frescoes (from books) indicates that some of the prophetic fgures were squared up, indicating that he enlarged from drawings. In other figures there are very clear stiletto marks indicating that he used full-sized cartoons. In other figures there are neither, and the outlines have either been scraped into the surface or just painted on in colour.
Why have you never been to see the originals? You really ought, if it is possible for you. It's quite mind-blowing, even if, like me, you think that the "restoration" went too far altogether. What country do you live in?
--Amandajm16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Classy handling of vanity edits
Nice job removing Koppelaar's and others' self-promotional images on the various pages they appeared. Very professional, replacing and not just deleting them. I had also come across some in the articles for Cat and Lion, but they seem to have been cleaned up since I noticed them.
Adamflorin22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In some cases, as in the one you mentioned, the artwork is quite good, but it is really embarrassing to load, or have someone else insert, one's images throughout the articles on painting (ditto the formulation of vanity articles, which just look cheesy), especially when wikimedia offers a plentiful stock of masters' works. JNW02:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, probably not so much a sockpuppet as "forgot to sign in". That IP hasn't done anything disruptive since my warning, but we should keep an eye on it too. Thanks for the tip. — coelacan — 16:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! I'm not finished there yet. Maybbe you could drop back there in a few days and refine my language again. I think the problem is, I've been writing for Simple English Wikipedia which employs mainly words of one syllable! My vocabulary has desserted me.
--Amandajm10:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was a list but has now been hugely expanded by a few editors; some of it may be cut & pasted from other articles, I'm not sure. Much of it is repeated at a new Western painting. The coverage & quality seem pretty variable to me. As these are I suppose flagship articles, people may like to help out. Johnbod02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied you this as i don't know if you see the VA project discussion page - maybe time to sign up btw, duties are light! cheers Johnbod02:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reporting 66.158.93.101 to WP:AIV, however I see that they have not received any recent warnings. IP users generally must have received a recent warning because IPs can be reassigned and the current user may not be the same as the one who vandalized in the past. —dgiestc21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been up to my ears busy at work, and have not had the proper time to read the guidelines on the use of images, but they seem to be open to various interpretations. My general take is that in the past I have eschewed the use of too many images in biographies, but I can see their value in the context of an overview like this one, especially in trying to illustrate the dizzying array of 20th century art movements. Until I can offer a more informed comment, my input is of little help, other than to say that you have done a terrific job with this article. JNW03:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in and your input. I'd forgotten about the 19th century Americans, especially Homer, Ryder and Blakelock. Modernist11:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could take a quick look at this quick effort. As usual I have rather run out of puff after Tiepolo, & have no practical knowledge! Cheers, Johnbod03:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - Very bad of me to forget Constable, especially as I saw the Tate exhibition last year with 6 x 6 footers & their sketches alongside! Johnbod15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may see that I have renominated Haystacks (Monet) for WP:GAC unsuccessfully. Although the statistics might say otherwise, I almost consider you the main editor of the article at this point. You have masterfully cleaned it up. Can you help me find the missing quotes so we can get this a good article rating? You seem like the kind of guy who might have the necessary books in his possession. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One to match your Vermeer/Van Meergheran (or whatever) article comparison - have you ever seen a fuller article on a single painting than this? Johnbod01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider your edits to Klimt and Degas legitimate; you are linking to an article you just created, of an artist who is not a recognized master; I could just as easliy link my own work there, and there will be no end to contemporary self-promotion. In the case of Klimt, a legitmate 'influence' would be Schiele, in the case of Degas, Sickert. If you think otherwise, please seek another opinion from an administrtaor or arts editor. Thanks, JNW20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The field in the infobox is for listing artists who were influenced by that artist. The article on Kevin Wasden lists sourced information that Klimt and Degas influenced him. How is that not legitimate? And it doesn't matter if the article was just created by me or by someone else. The whole point of the Wiki is to have links going between articles so people can find them more easily. And I don't need to contact an admin because I am one. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Must go now, but as an administrator I am certain you can understand the concern I am raising. Thank you, JNW21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. This isn't just going to go away. You can not force your opinion on everyone else simply because you disagree with others. You are abusing the rollback feature, and edit warring. You refusal to even discuss this is very telling. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe21:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am going to dinner, and look forward to resuming this discussion. No warring intended--that is why I am happy to seek another opinion. Cheers, JNW21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your point of view, as well as the unsolicited opinions of several contributors here [2]. Even (or especially) when I'm sure I'm right, overzealousness must be my least attractive feature. My best judgment, post dinner, is to gently wish all a good evening, and many happy reverts. JNW03:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wynford Dewhurst
Dear user JNW,
I noticed that you deleted my contribution to the Impressionism page, removing the information I posted about Wynford Dewhurst. You say Dewhurst was a painter/writer of no influence, but as an art historian at the University of Bristol, UK, I can assure you that the publication of Dewhurst's most important work as an author Impressionist Painting: its genesis and development in 1904 was extremely "seminal" and very influencial to British artists as it was the first book on French Impressionist to be published in English and helped to introduce many important British artists (e.g. Sickert, Philip Wilson Steer, James Whistler) to this style of painting, long before Roger Fry's 1910 exhibition. Moreover, Dewhurst was a follower of Monet and spent considerable periods of time working in France with Impressionist painters. He corresponded with Pissarro and Monet.
I believe the nature of Wikipedia is to share knowledge and to expand on existing articles to add interesting information all the time, please do not remove my post about Dewhurst again. I understand that you have removed useless and unhelpful references to other entries in other cases, like the editor who rather ridiculously added Kevin Wasden to Klimt and Degas, but as an academic who has researched Wynford Dewhurst and Impressionism (with particular attention to the emergence of Impressionism in British painting) extensively, I can tell you that Dewhurst was, in fact, an important and influencial figure in bringing Impressionism to Britain; I can assure you that my contribution was valid.
Finally, when you have listed artists representing Impressionist painting in Turkey and Egypt (!) why on earth would you deny a painter like Dewhurst to represent the movement in Britain? Outside of France, Impressionism was present more profoundly in Britain than any other nation, including America. Certainly Impressionism was more present in Britain than in Turkey or Egypt. In the matter of Impressionism in Britain Dewhurst was one of the foremost figures; although not as successful a painter as Whistler or Sickert with the Camden Town Group, as a writer he was of the utmost importance, his 1904 book was at the time the ONLY book in English about Impressionism and was therefore very influencial to British painters. I appreciate your effort if you thought that I didn't know what I was talking about, but this time please do not whimsically remove valid contributions merely because you haven't yourself heard of the subject in question (in this case Wynford Dewhurst). Please do not remove a valid contribution just because the information is beyond your understanding of the movement. Accept my apologies if I am wrong but perhaps your knowledge of Impressionism is limited to the most "famous" painters (e.g. Monet - and others who sell for millions of pounds in Christie's and Sotheby's) but you should trust art historians with university educations on Impressionism to decide who was important in spreading the movement outside France, before you dismiss important figures like Dewhurst as "minor". In bringing Impressionism to Britian, it was Dewhurst.
For your information, and just as an example of Dewhurst's importance as a writer (you say he was not seminal), consider the fact that his book Impressionist Painting presented the thesis that the French Impressionists relied on British painters John Constable and J. M. W. Turner in technique. This theory was responded to personally by the great giant of Impressionism, Pissarro. With masters like Pissarro reading and responding to Dewhurst's book, how can you dismiss his work as a writer? Considering that his book was the FIRST study of French Impressionism in the English language, how can you say he was not seminal?
If you are still hesitating, research British Impressionism first and then get back to me. Kenneth McConkey has written a couple of very good books on the subject (British Impressionism published by Phaidon (1989) and Impressionism in Britain, exhibition cat., published by Yale University Press (1995), both of which feature Dewhurst prominantly.)
Thank you. Your note to me was impressive for your knowledge on the subject. Initially I was dubious; I found little about Dewhurst via a google search (no other bios of much substance), believed your additions were a bit too prominent for the articles on Impressionism and Monet, and I was not taken by the quality of his work. However, and not for the first time, I have encountered a subject about which I have much to learn, and you are obviously a good and patient teacher.
I appreciate the time and effort you took to write me, and the depth of your scholarship here. I do want to read more about Dewhurst and his writing, and will look up McConkey. In the meantime, I stand corrected. Respectfully yours, JNW03:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JNW,
Thank you for your kind and humble response to my post. You are right, there isn't very much information on Dewhurst online, he is not especially "famous" and was somewhat more influencial as a writer than a painter (he is celebrated for his book on Impressionism more than his work as a painter, though his work is respected by those who know about him), so I do not blame you for thinking as you did. Nevertheless even though he is not famous to the general public or documented extensively online (which is one of the reasons I wrote about him on Wikipedia), he is mentioned in almost every book on Impressionism that I have come across and was certainly important in bringing Impressionism to Britain. For your interest, please read the biography I posted (Wynford Dewhurst) - I can assure you that it is faithful to all the scholarly articles I have read about him in books, and it makes use of both of those very good books by McConkey that I mentioned.
P.S. If you're interested, you can read Dewhurst's book Impressionist Painting: its genesis and development online thanks to a Canadian library: http://www.openlibrary.org/details/impressionistpai00dewhuoft (use the arrows bottom right to turn the pages).
I have read your thoughts more carefully, and have had the opportunity to do a spot of research, and found the following:
According to McConkey, Dewhurst's book was indeed "the first important study of the French impressionists to be published in English". However, McConkey also notes that Dewhurst was anxious to maintain that French impressionism was British in conception, and that "Pissarro objected to this preposterous claim"; the phrasing here, and the citing of George Moore's opinion in the next paragraph, is such as to indicate that McConkey agrees with Pissarro.
In the case of Dewhurst's influence on the British artists you mentioned, there is reason to be skeptical, after all. The French and British were familiar with each others' works dating from the early 1800s. We know of Constable's influence on Delacroix, and of the latter's friendship with Bonington. So it is odd to suppose that English artists were unfamiliar with impressionism until 1904. In fact, the work of French impressionist painters was being written about, exhibited, and purchased by collectors in London in the 1870s (Degas, Sickert, and Toulouse-Lautrec: London and Paris 1870-1910, Tate Publishing; catalogue of a wonderful show, which I saw in London).
As for Sickert, Steer, and Whistler: by 1889 Sickert and Steer were exhibiting, along with a number of other 'London Impressionists' who were at odds with the more traditional members of New English Art Club, at the Goupil Gallery in London. By this time Sickert had long since been a protégé of both Degas and Whistler; the latter was, of course, familiar with impressionism and its practitioners decades before Dewhurst published his study (in fact, Whistler was dead before 1904). Sickert and Steer were the primary British painters in the impressionist vernacular before the turn of the century. Steer's best-known impressionist venture was Knucklebones, which was painted by 1889.
Maybe Dewhurst's role was to further popularize Monet's brand of impressionism. Certainly he merits mention for being the first to write a book on the impressionists in English (although many articles had preceded him, like an essay by the American Theodore Robinson, a first-rate painter who wrote an enthusiastic article about his mentor Monet and the other impressionists in the early 1890s). Indeed, by 1885 American painters were visiting and working alongside Monet in Giverny--how could the British have not known about all this until the 20th century? They did. JNW18:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JNW,
Thank you for your latest thoughts on this. I'm sorry for not responding sooner, I have been away and hadn't a chance to respond to your message in detail.
While you are certainly correct in saying that Sickert and Steer were exhibiting impressionistic paintings (with other members of the Camden Town Group) by 1889, I would have to disagree with some of the things you wrote in your last message to me. First, you seem to have misunderstood my mention of Sickert, Steer and Whistler (who, as you say, was indeed dead in 1903, before Dewhurst's book Impressionist Painting: its genesis and development was published in 1904). I mentioned those painters as examples of "important British artists" (those are the words I used before mentioning their names). In retrospect I suppose my mention of Whistler in particular was irrelevant and somewhat unhelpful as he does not represent British Impressionism at all (he is of course significant as the leading figure of the Aesthetic - or 'Art for Art's sake' - movement). You are quite right, Impressionism was present in British art before Dewhurst's account of Impressionism. I should not have implied that Impressionism occurred in British painting because of Dewhurst's book because loose, impressionistic brushstrokes were used by Whistler, Sickert and Steer, Newlyn School and other Camden Town painters long before. However, the precisely French technique of Monet - using dabs of colour that result in an optical blend of hues when viewed from a distance - was first written about, and indeed taken up in painting, by Dewhurst. He was not responsible for Sickert and Steer's impressionism - paintings of working-class, London interiors, which is precisely British. Dewhurst was influencial in Britain for his promotion of Monet's French technique; he introduced the French version of Impressionism to Britain. You are right in saying that he wasn't responsible for the Impressionism that existed before his book was published (e.g. that of Sickert and Steer) but his book and his own paintings are notable for their promotion of the specifically French style. Apart from his promotion of Monet's technique, he was also influencial on British artists for his thesis that Impressionism was British in origin, something I will come back to.
I feel you focus too strongly on the publication date of 1904 of the book Impressionist Painting: its genesis and development for Dewhurst had already published most of the information in the book as early as 1900. Dewhurst's book was merely an expanded version of four articles that he wrote between 1900-3. These articles were:
'A Great French Landscapist' (October 1900, The Artist).
and 'Impressionist Painting: its genesis and development', parts 1 and 2, (April and July 1903, The Studio, vol. XXXIX).
While I am not putting Sickert and Steer's impressionistic style down to Dewhurst, he "deserves credit as the first Englishman to attempt a genuinely sympathetic full-length survery of the subject" (Dennis Farr, English Art: 1870-1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.) You claim that because McConkey writes that Pissarro objected to Dewhurst's "preposterous claim" (the claim that French impressionism was British in conception), is because McConkey agrees with Pissarro's view. I have to object very strongly to this; McConkey uses the word "preposterous" to give a sense of Pissarro's opinion of that claim, and definitely not his own. The citing of George Moore's opinion in the next paragraph is merely to give some idea of the differing opinions of the writers of the time on that matter. McConkey also writes that Dewhurst's theme "was taken up by others as various as Clausen, John Rothenstein and Kenneth Clark" (McConkey, Impressionism in Britian, p.82) would you accept therefore that by mentioning Dewhurst's supporters (Clausen, Rothenstein and Clark) we can deduce that McConkey agrees with Dewhurst? No, he mentions then not to support his own view but because he is writing a historical account and is providing a detailed overview of the topic, which was fiercely debated at the time. For your information here are references from the publications, by the writers that I mentioned above, that support Dewhurst:
Kenneth Clark, Landscape into Art, 1949, p.86-107. (Pages refer to the Pelican edition of this book, 1956).
George Clausen, Royal Academy Lectures on Painting, 1913, p.128.
John Rothenstein, Ninteenth-Century Painting, 1932, p.178.
You make it sound as though Dewhurst's theory was ridiculed and make him out to be some sort of laughing stock, and I would like to inform you that this is absolutely not the case. Dewhurst's theory was widely accepted by many people in Britain (including hugely influencial writers such as Kenneth Clark) and initially, to some extent, even by Pissarro himself. Dennis Farr also informs us that Dewhurst was not the only Englishman to publish on the "Impressionists overwhelming debt to Turner, Constable and Bonington" - MacColl published on the same subject in 1902 (his book was entitled Nineteenth Century Art). Therefore I have to object strongly to your claim that Dewhurst's thesis is "preposterous", and your claim that McConkey agrees with Pissarro's view (McConkey uses that word to give a sense of Pissarro's response to Dewhurst's theory). He does not agree with it: he even writes that "Pissaro wanted to play down" Dewhurst's theory, and McConkey recognizes Dewhurst's "valiant efforts" (quotes from McConkey, Impressionism in Britain, p.82). How can Dewhurst's theory be so wrong when Pissarro himself wrote that "The watercolours and paintings of Turner and Constable, the canvases of Old Crome, have certainly had influence upon us". If you had read McConkey with more attention, you would have read that "Pissarro recoiled from the over-emphasis Dewhurst placed upon this innocently expressed opinion" (McConkey, Impressionism in Britain, p.82). This hardly implies that McConkey rejects Dewhurst thesis. All best wishes, --Mahboubian14:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, and I, likewise, have taken a long time. My last entry on the subject: Several weeks ago I found and added a reference to the Dewhurst article which noted Pissarro's contradictory statements re: British predecessors--I have no agenda here, and am interested in different, and sometimes contradictory, information. As seen above, at no point did I make the subject out to be a 'laughing stock', nor did I refer to him as 'preposterous', but was citing McConkey, whose writings we interpret differently. My previous interpretation stands. Cheers, JNW17:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I salute you
You are a truthful and good editor and you have my respect. It's refreshing when people are realistic, impartial and open-minded. On a different note, I very much like your painting 'Friends'. With best wishes, --Mahboubian19:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noah
I sure that the unsigned edit was in good faith. One really wants to ecourage people to edit, even if their first edits are not always to the point. I like the "Friends" painting as well. I really enjoy your work.
Thankyou! You might take a little look at Italian Renaissance painting, if you've got the time. I just corrected quite a lot of typos' but there's undoubtedly more...and my spelling is rather lacking. Attilios comes along and adds the correct inflections and changes the odd word to a more Italian one, and the Italian ones that I leave in, back to English. He's fixed Assissi for me more than once, but I still can't remember how it goes! So whatever it says in that article, is correct.
Thankyou so much for your encouragement! It's about 2.00 am on this side of Planet Earth, so I think might turn in! --Amandajm16:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar 3
The Original Barnstar
For exceptional tact and patience in dealing with others, and for innumerable improvements in the fine arts articles. Ewulp03:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JNW, you've done a great job with fixing things! As for the Last Judgment article...Yeah, I noticed. I don't know why it looks so bad to me. It just does! Given the number of words that I manage to spell wrongly, you'd think I'd hardly notice! I need a spell fixer permanently in tow. I didn't mean to be rude to you!
Thanks again! It's good to feel appreciated. I probably ought to be out there teaching but it's not the way things have worked out.
I was just cruising around.. noticed Monet's haystacks on your list. There seems to me to be an intrinsic problem with that page... a misunderstanding about the nature of a haystack. I suppoose i'd better leave a message on the page.. bye! --Amandajm14:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - hope you're enjoying the break. I'm passing on a request to check out canvas - I've added a bit ,but you will know more. Johnbod17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot one word in my edit summary, "previous text was in no way a summary of this article". I think the lead should speak about Rembrandt, not about the Dutch Golden Age. Do you agree the sentence I just removed should indeed be omitted? – Ilse@14:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not responded to this, Tony, only because I kind of ran out of gas on this for now. If I can make a positive contribution to this in the future, I will. Many thanks, JNW17:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JNW! I took a look at Deane G. Keller. Well done! What a lovely ppoortrait that is of a quite magnificent looking man. What did Keller look like? It would have been lovely to be able to put up your portrait of him in the article.
I have written biographies of a teacher of mine, who also died a few years ago. Jean Isherwood, and my good friend Wendy Richardson, a playwright. Has anybody written your biography yet? It's not quite the done thing to write your own, however people do. Wendy was introduced to a gathering recently as the only Australian writer who hadn't written her own biography on wikipedia.
Your reworking of Chardin is terrific and long overdue. Although whats with this sentence? - Chardin entered into a marriage contract with Marguerite Saintard in 1723, whom he did not marry is son Jean-Pierre was baptized, and a daughter, Marguerite-Agnès, was baptized in 1733. Strange domestic life I guess. Anyway its looking good. Congrats Modernist22:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superlatives
Hi
I'd avoid the use of superlatives unless they are factual, e.g. Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, Bill Gates is according to Fortune's 2006 survey the wealthiest individual in the wold, etc. When you say Chardin is the greatest master of the still life (a statement with which I personally agree, though I'm no expert) you're expressing, or relating, a subjective opinion. What is factual is that he was a master of the still life and had influence on contemporary and later painters which is today appreciated. Who's to say what will happen to his work in 20 or 100 years?
In music Bach had to be rediscovered because he'd been more or less forgotten with 20 years of his passing. Mozart was one of his fans, but this was definitely an expert opinion on what was then an obscure dead composer. Opinions wax and wane... Vincent07:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I sounded a little preachy. I should have toned down the rhetoric a bit, or at least dressed it up to make it more polite. And thanks for understanding my point! I noticed you contributed to the John Singer Sargent article. He's the greatest artist that ever lived (I can use the superlative, it's a talk page) and looking at his pictures made me understand that A) realism isn't and B) impressionism can be what realism isn't.
I've always loved his picture of Isaac Newton Phelps-Stokes. The new strong 20th century woman (well fin-de-siècle anyway) with the doofus husband in the background. Wrong. I've no idea if Edith Minturn was or was not an idiot, but the genius in the painting is the husband who was a successful architect and New York historian. There's a beautiful story about his friendship with New York mayor Fiorello La Guardia. This realistic portrait does not accurately portray the relative importance of the two sitters. But that was my mistake.
The other point was brought home to me on my last visit to the Met last April. There's a painting of a dear in the woods lit through autumn leaves. On first glance one cannot see the deer, only dabs of paint much like any impressionist might deliver. Then suddenly you see the deer and realize the whole scene is very realistic, it's just the light that was tricky.
PS I really like Sargent's work, but I don't really think he's the greatest artist that ever lived. ;) -- vfp15
Harvey
Is he a mate? It's wierd we're both editing him tonight, or did you spot one of my "Artist aouthors" adds? I'm trying to declutter the Visual arts categories. Johnbod03:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. Please have at the Calder images, and try to place them. I'm actually working today on real life stuff. I'm not a big Robert Hughes fan and his comment about Chardin was a bit too pushy I thought, but as the Chardin show at the Met demonstrated he was a great still life painter, an interesting and good printmaker and definitely more modern than most of his contemporaries. I like Watteau a lot and there are some great Fragonard's at the Frick, but Chardin has a reality to him that still resonates, maybe because he painted ordinary people doing ordinary things. Modernist14:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for the message. Yeah, I saw the Chardin show about six or seven times, I have to admit that while I saw the Alice Neel show, I had absolutely no recollection that it was up at the same time - Summer 2000. Its funny how certain things are vivid and certain things fade. Modernist03:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External link removal
Hello JNW,
On July 18, 2007 you removed external links to a private gallery from the following articles:
(diff) (hist) . . Charles E. Burchfield; 22:42 . . (-114) . . JNW (Talk | contribs) (rv gallery link; other bio links here already)
(diff) (hist) . . Winslow Homer; 22:38 . . (+7) . . JNW (Talk | contribs) (rv link to commercial gallery, replaced with museum bio)
I felt the links to this gallery had pertinent information and visuals related to these artists. External links can sometimes walk a fine line between being viable and violating Wikipedia policy. I think other external links in these articles should have been reviewed for removal as well, because they too walk that fine line of violating Wikipedia policy.
On the [Rockwell Kent] page both the Rockwell Kent Artwork Examples on AskART and Photos of the Random House edition of Moby Dick Illustrated by Rockwell Kent links should have been considered for removal. AskArt.com is a major dealer resource for buying and selling of art online. And the link to the Moby Dick book has numerous links to other book buying websites. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have the ISBN number listed as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines for the book link?
In the both the [William Merritt Chase] and [Childe Hassam] articles there are links to Artcyclopedia.com Both sites display numerous links to dealer sites.
Again, the same goes for the AskArt.com links found in both the [Charles Burchfield] and [Winslow Homer] articles.
Often, I see external links removed form articles and not others when they too may warrant removal. I would just like to see more attention paid to this issue.
Thank you for taking the time to update and maintain these articles. At times, it's not an easy job and is much appreciated. Alp177614:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alp1776,
Thanks for your message. I don't claim to be an exhaustive editor when it comes to deleting external sites that I think are not appropriate links--often it's the most recent changes that catch my eye, as was the case here. Often these links were added to articles which already linked to other biographies, so these extra links look superfluous. And when added en masse, it gives the appearance, justified or not, that a web site, in this case for a commercial entity (which happens to sell very fine artwork), is being plugged. In several cases I replaced the commercial links with biographical entries from museum sites, where a product is not quite so obviously being sold, all of which I noted in the edit summaries. Finally, I think it says somewhere in WP:EL that arguing that the presence of other questionable links is beside the point--if you think they don't belong, please revert them, too. If the biography can use a good scholarly link, please add one from a non-commercial source. I'd be grateful. JNW23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-Portrait
Hi JNW, In regards to your comment on Talk:Self-portrait - Yeah, I was surprised the other day when I found this - Talk:Self-portrait/Autoportrait,from the French, I've been doing a lot of work on Self Portrait for several months off and on, and I discovered the other article accidently a few days ago by surprise. Inadvertantly since it was different in so many ways from the other article I mistakenly moved it from Talk:Self-portrait/Autoportrait,from the French to an article page now called Self-portrait/Autoportrait. Clearly the two articles are related but different. Now I've been editing both. I think Self Portrait is superior but I'm interested in creating the two related but different articles at this point. Frankly I wish Self-portrait/Autoportrait had a talk page, but I'm at a loss as to how to make a talk page on it, I've tried but it doesn't seem to work. - Modernist04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the new article is better -- still horribly written, but it now asserts notability and doesn't include contact information. I am going to put an unsourced tag on it, though. NawlinWiki 02:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Oops, you're right, missed the Rembrandt stuff. Now deleted. NawlinWiki02:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the only meat is the contemporary US stuff - it is a very poor stub otherwise (or either way). I didn't change the redirect, so "figurative art" will still take you there. Move it back by all means if you like, but until it covers the wider subject much better I don't think I'm inclined to myself. I've come across Dana Levin promoting herself very persistently elsewhere & admit I thought it easiest to shunt her onto a siding; if removed she will certainly add herself back. Johnbod19:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a quick & dirty solution & I really don't mind at all if you revert. Like you, I certainly don't have much appetite for overhauling the article, & the 20th century bit is not an area I'm very at home in. Actually at the moment I think it needs more on modern figurative art, rather than some brief overview of world art history. How about "figurative art in the modern period", still keeping the redirect from plain FA? Johnbod21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of you starting a new article about 20th century figurative art. Covering the bases from Matisse, Picasso, Chagall, Modigliani to Avery, Graham, Gorky, De Kooning, Pollock (1951-1953), Wyeth, Freud, Bacon, Auerbach, to Park, Diebenkorn, Neri, Bischoff, to Pop Art, Porter, Katz, Red Grooms, to Clemente, Fischl, and the Art Student League types. Give it a go. I think its timely. Modernist22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like you, actually I have lots coming at me this fall, real stuff, in real life, but I'll help you if you need. Lets think about it. Its a project. Modernist01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I'm awarding you this prestigious Defender of the Wiki Barnstar because you have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Wikidudeman(talk)14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
category: People from Valencia versus Valencian People
I was just looking up the answer in Wikipedia guide and while it seems the preferred setting is the former, likely with a clarification as to Valencia, Spain; it accepts the latter when the provenance would be commonly recognized (ie Bostonians as opposed to People from Boston).
I looked up the Valencian People category and it has far more than the former, so I will change my entries to favor popuplar majority. thanks. CARAVAGGISTI22:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back again
DA-DA !!! Thanks - Still accelerating back down the slip road of the WP autoroute so far, but will no doubt reach the usual excessive speed soon! Johnbod19:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Copied text
That's a delete. Wikipedia's license allows reuse for any purpose, not just educational, so we'd be trying to give away more rights than they granted to us. —Celithemis23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of giving this a once-over? I've added stuff that was needed on modelling chiaroscuro rather than the big bad Caravaggio sort. Also if you have any good references covering these two uses of the term clearly, that would be very handy. Thanks!
Thanks - That was the way I thought about chiaroscuro too, & is clearly how it is now normally used. But after I did the article over the first time, I kept coming across the modelling use in art history. I haven't seen Grove on it (in theory I can access at home via my local library, in practice it very rarely works - supposedly my Norton security interferes) but all the other reference works I have seen don't handle the various meanings very well imho. I had a quick look at Delacroix, which looked good - it's alarming how many big names need a makeover. Johnbod14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Art
I'd had a quick look - the main problem it seems to me is that the first sections are talking about Art as in "the arts", & the rest of the article is mostly about visual art (as I think it should be). Its all awfully woolly, & I'll see what I can do, but then I've never got beyond p12 of Richard Wollheim's opus. Johnbod15:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I see I am at p.40, by which point we have more or less satified ourselves that there is no physical object called Der Rosenkavalier. Great stuff. Peeping ahead, I see on p.143: "Enough has already been said in this essay to suggest that our initial hope of eliciting a definition of art, or of a work of art, was excessive ....".
I think at the moment the best I can suggest on the evaluation para is to remove it until something better comes along. It is clearly drivel as it stands. But I may continue to tinker with it. Johnbod16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a muddled area. I think the former is the correct form unless the latter is a more commonplace usage (New Yorkers, for example). I honestly didn't have the energy to look and see how big the valencian people category was, but I will make merge them in the near future. Thanks for the edits. CARAVAGGISTI22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - I nearly quoted in the article a cutting footnote (same ref as bit I did quote) by Rosand saying that really most books on Giorgione should have the same title as one Italian article in the literature: "Il mio Giorgione"! You can certainly hear the knives being sharpened in some of the literature. Do we allow Daumier off-days? His output was so prodigious maybe we should. I don't usually take strong stands - as an artist I think you are equipped to judge in ways I'm not. Johnbod15:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but you understand so many aspects like brush technique far better. I saw this magnificent thing yesterday (great NG exhibition) & had a good look before reading the card & discovering they got fed up with Hals taking so long & hired Codde I think to do ....(answer unpside down at the bottom - the whole right half!). He adapted his technique to match, & certainly had me fooled. Johnbod15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JNW, I just wanted to say thank you for reverting the edits by User:194.164.236.17 today. This anon IP seems to only add edits about Will Tether. Makes me wonder if it is a fan or a publicist. I wanted to let you know that I added a warning to their talk page. This editor may warrant blocking one day and I have noticed that admins are loath to do this unless they have been warned about their behavior. Also, they may not know that they can become an editor who can contribute positively until they know what they are doing wrong (though I don't think that is they case here). If you encounter these edits again you may want to consider adding new warnings to their page (see WP:WARN), but, please don't feel that you have to do this. I am only mentioning it as a suggestion. Thanks for your time and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk00:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doin' damn awful! Cracked 3 vertebrae. had to give up th course, and have a series of medicals.... I've been so down I haven't been able to concentrate... ended up doing stupid edits on IMDb instead. Well, I'm back!Amandajm12:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got books piled around the floor six deep, and don't have the energy to shove them back on the shelves. I wish my son and my dawg were not both so bouncy. You can see my dawg at Australian Cattle Dog. He's the sneaky-looking blue brute with the bat ears and a head like a hyena. Thanks for the encouragement. We ate out tonight and it was delicious. Amandajm12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drake
Hola,
Sir Francis Drake's Spanish nickname was El Draque (not El Dragón). Please look it up.
Draque is old Spanish from the Latin draco. The old English "drake" and modern usage "dragon" are the same as the old Spanish "draque" and modern "dragón".
Sir Walter Raleigh: Being a True and Vivid Account of the Life and Times of ... By Raleigh Trevelyan (available on Google Books)
The Literary World By Samuel R. Crocker, Edward Abbott, Nicholas Paine Gilman, Madeline Vaughan Abbott Bushnell, Bliss Carman, Herbert Copeland p54 (available on Google Books)
Oceana, Or, England and Her Colonies By James Anthony Froude p 32 (available on Google Books)
Btw, google "El Dragòn" with "Drake", you will see that the few references to this version of the Drake nickname seem to source back to the uncorrected Wikipedia article, sadly including an eBay listing for 1722 edition of Drake's Voyages which clearly prefaces the quote with "According to Wikipedia". Even running a Google search with these terms turns up more hits which reflect the correct "El Draque" nickname. Of course, if you search "El Draque" and "Drake" you will find many, many uses of the correct nickname.
Yes, that editor is determined to promote this "movement" and the artist attached to it. No sources though, which creates a few problems. I'm sure the PROD will be removed, so the article may need to go to speedy or AfD. I'm offline for the rest of the weekend (Canadian Thanksgiving/vacation from wiki), so you may need to take it to the next step if necessary. Cheers. Freshacconci | Talk14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haystacks (Monet) GA on hold
We are on the borderline with Haystacks (Monet). The fourth attempt has gotten to a hold status. We have another 5 days to meet all their demands. Do you still have access to the Tucker text? A {{fact}} tag was place on a sentence. The subsequent sentence has a Tucker footnote on it. I am unsure if Tucker applies to both sentences. Come by and help out with the editorial changes if you have some time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks on CC - it came out nicely I think. I only did a little revert, as you probably saw, & haven't checked what's left of our previous reverts! It needs a good going over when the storm passes... Cheers, Johnbod18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with you. Aside from WP:COI, there's a whole list of issues that spring to mind. How to decide on something so arbitrary (who gets to have work used to illustrate an article)? How would we control the deluge of artists posting their work for self-promotion? What about quality: is anything game? Who decides what's "good enough" for Wikipedia? I think WP:COI covers it well as a policy and deleting images like that when we encounter them is justified. This particular instance seems to have been settled by Modernist (the artist has asked that his drawings be taken off Wiki Commons). Freshacconci | Talk16:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully his drawings will be removed from commons, I'm glad you removed the Piaf drawing, I made the point with Picasso - but it is a can of worms. I didn't want to be so heavy handed as to wipe em all off but I really think they should all go. Modernist19:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm in agreement with you concerning only well known works as illustration material, I mentioned Phong Bui's drawing of Elizabeth Murray in the September issue of the Brooklyn Rail, - his drawings are astonishingly sensitive, I'd like us to have an open mind concerning material that might be new, but extraordinary. As subjective as that sounds, I hope my judgement is trustworthy. Thanks by the way for dealing with those not so great pictures. Modernist21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel much the same, as to the subjectivity of such decisions, as well as my own ability to make such judgments. Still, it would be tempting for me to use what I think are extraordinary drawings by my friends, colleagues, or even those whose work most closely corresponds to my own tastes, which defines too narrow a spectrum, and runs close to COI. Fuller disclosure: I have painted commissioned portraits, from life, of notables with Wikipedia articles, and have, in weak moments, thought about including one of my paintings in a subject's biography, but this would, naturally, be a COI. It would even raise real questions should another party (the subject, their institution, or one of my business agents) do the same, even for an established portrait artist, for purposes which could easily be construed as promotional.
You all are sweet! I'm fine. In June I moved from Seattle to Leavenworth, Washington to do design and layout at the weekly newspapers here. In Sept. and Oct. we do one special section after another which kept me extremely busy (see some of the covers on my blog, http://www.makinitupasigo.com/blog). I'm also living in a rural area without broadband (gasp), and around the end of Sept. my phone line went goofy and I can no longer connect to my dialup ISP, and I've not yet contacted Verizon to get that fixed. So, basically I'm more involved right now with print publishing than web publishing, and I just a few weeks ago got my studio area set up at home.--sparkitTALK18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear you are not well! Hope you are soon your old self!
Re Leo's handedness, that is a good article. Would you contribute a paragraph, calling it whatever you think appropriate? When you feel up to it.... Amandajm02:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently tagged my Sivkov article. You also claim that we've been through this before. You'll have to forgive me, but I do not recall ever having discussed anything with you. That said: yes, I agree that the article would do better with more references (that is currently underway). I do, however, disagree with referring to the tone used as peacocked. I have an MA in cultural history from the University of Florida. I am aware of the vernacular used in scholastic art reviews, studies and literature. It does appear to me that you enjoy studying art. However, there is a great difference between the academic research and amateur writing. With respect; if you have any helpful hints, let me know.
I agree with you that the language used is colourful. I have taken the time to read some of your contributions to wikipedia. And, the difference is that your work focuses on the biographical aspect of the artists' lives, and not a critical description of the artists' oeuvre. Nevertheless, I agree that more references would benefit the Sivkov article.
Thanks for your note. My contributions are not offered as exemplary, but I try to refer, as best as I can, to the general tenets of encyclopedic writing. So, I have come to use references a lot, and to hold to verifiable information. One tries to hold to that which has scholarly precedent. This is absolutely necessary for an encyclopedia.
Critical description of an artist's work is allowable, but it must be cited, rather than put forth by you and me. Otherwise, there are so many flights of alliterative and critical fancy I would like to indulge in when writing about artists, most of which would be justifiably reverted as original research (WP:OR). JNW (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J. Whistler
Kindly leave my page as is. Rembrandt and Paul (da 'man) C. feel that same way - may we suggest another hobby that would be more suitable for your free time, like hunting for dangling participles? Here's one for a start:
-Swinging wildly through the trees, the children were delighted by the monkeys.
Why does thy bother with this compendium of bored hacks who have nothing else to do but wait for their flesh to rot. A creative life is a gift beyond measure -if you do not possess one, find thou passion at once before it is too late. Flee, flee, this stench of flawed impuritiesWhistlersghost (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Whistlersghost[reply]
Thank you again for your interest in my life. Creativity takes many forms. Where one smells stench, others may discern earnest attempts at understanding. Besides, one is not above bored hackiness. Hmm, that could be my new username. JNW (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me speaks of life in a broader sense. as I am not interested in yours, per se (such arrogance you have to assume such). I am interested in keeping you out of my life and leaving my history to the experts. Whistlersghost (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Whistlersghost[reply]
Pearl Buck illustrators
Personally, I am aware of no precedents for including references to illustrators of works in the biography of the author. Such content could reasonably I think be added to the content in the bio of the illustrator, but from what little I know the author doesn't necessarily choose the illustrator, so there's not necessarily any real connection between the author per se and the illustrator. Having said all that, inclusion of such info in the articles on the books themselves makes perfect sense, and if it can be established that there was a degree of personal contact between an author and an illustrator, that could be referenced in the article too. But personally I can't see justifying the existing section in the article in question. I'll make similar contents on the talk page if you so request, but I'm kinda new to the biography project so I can't cite previous cases as well as I might like. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
