Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

Art & Language and Art-Language

There's a lot of overlap between these two articles (and the former seems to contain a lot of cruft), so they could benefit from some attention from a knowledgeable editor. Perhaps a merge would be appropriate? --Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably - Art & Language actually gets a good number of views (c 40 pd), which the other doesn't. Whether they are all looking for this obscure group I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

To my mind, they can be merged - carefully. From the view here in the US I recall Art & Language as a notable collaborative group of conceptual artists - in the 1970's we heard about them quite a lot. Whereas Art-Language was their publication. The two could be into one article, however it makes sense that the article should lead with the conceptual art group itself, and the publication could be a section within that article. Netherzone (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. Would you or somebody else here be able to do the merge? I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, I fear. --Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

After further investigation, it seems that after 1972 the group Art & Language was no longer so directly involved. It was mainly a stand-alone publication from 1972 to 1985 when publication ceased. That is 13 years of its 20-year run. So on second thought, I think it is best that they remain as two distinct articles, but with "See also" pointing to one another. Both articles could stand some cleaning up, tho. How does that sound to you two? Netherzone (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Liberty_(goddess)#Requested_move_27_May_2019

• "Liberty (goddess) → Personification of Liberty. Comments welcome. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Art UK template & links

Art UK (aka the Public Catalogue Foundation, content formerly presented as "Your Paintings" on the BBC website) is a charity that has systematically catalogued and imaged every oil painting in public ownership in the UK -- the first time this has ever been done -- and now makes the results available on its website.

We currently have 22,547 artists on Wikidata matched to Art UK pages, 7701 of whom currently have articles on English Wikipedia. (Wikipedia:GLAM/Your_paintings#Stats).

Up to a couple of days ago, we had about 1800 articles transcluding the {{Art UK bio}} template in their External Links section, to link to the relevant material for the artist on the Art UK site. So about 6000 articles that could have such links didn't, the choice of those that did typically being a rather haphazard and arbitrary accident of history.

It seems to me that generally, for most of the artists, this would be a useful link to give to our readers. So in the last day or so I have started working down the list, adding it in an organised way, starting with the painters with the largest numbers of works in UK collections and going from there. The template now has 2093 transclusions, and is present on all painters with more than 34 works in UK collections, that being where I have got to.

However, User:Coldcreation saw my addition to the Paul Cézanne article, and has objected, saying this is spam.

So I would like to ask, is it the VA project's view that this is a useful template to add systematically, as we do for eg the IMDB templates; or should I go no further? Jheald (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems like a good external link as long as it links to the works of the artist whose page it's placed on (only looked at the Cézanne link). One problem is that the site wants visitors to agree to cookies (although that's a personal objection, i.e. I won't be clicking on it), so that may or may not be a problem. I can't remember discussions about cookies at Wikipedia links. Thanks for your additions (except for the need for cookies). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I would not add thousands of links to this website here at Wikipedia. There are already more than 300. There is an article about it where users can then move on to see works. The Art UK logo looks very unprofessional. No technique or dimensions are given for the works, at least on the pages I checked. But there is an annoying pop-up window that says "Subscribe to our newsletter". Coldcreation (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Coldcreation: Date, medium, dimensions, accession number, and acquisition story are there if you click through on one of the images and then scroll down on its own page. I think the charity is run fairly frugally; they may not have huge resources, and most of what they do have may be going towards their current new project of photographing public works of sculpture. I'm not crazy about their logo, but presumably somebody thought it was a good idea. Jheald (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The merits or otherwise of Art UK's logo have no bearing on whether we should be including links to their website. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy against adding links to sites which use pop-ups and other irritating not-clicking-here-again coding? If not maybe it should, which may make some of these sites rethink their own policies and how they treat the public. It seems a good link if not for that. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Just on the cookies issue - I had a quick look at the Art UK website to check - the cookie pop-up and agreement is a requirement of the UK General Data Protection Act and the European General Data Protection Regulation. Art UK note this under their privacy policy. This is common practice for British and European websites. I don't know what Wikipedia's policy on this is. Uberlibris (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Please continue;- Art UK is a really usefull link to have in an article, particularly where no images are readily available but also more generally, and clearly not spam.14GTR (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with 14GTR on this, Art UK is a useful service which provides benefit to those readers who want to follow the external link. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It should be added selectively, first checking what they have on their site for the artist. For obscure but productive British artists, with little on Commons, it is invaluable. For big names from abroad, often not so much. For Charles Walter Simpson (English artist), Commons has nothing, but Art UK 27 paintings. Unfortunately their image size is rather too small to make mass-uploading to Commons very worthwhile where copyright is not an issue for us (which we have discussed with them, but their hands are tied by the terms they agreed with the owners). Titian has 268 works, which sounds great, but most are copies or "school of". I don't know that you can filter these out. For many fairly well-known non-British artists there may well be only one or two images, far less than is on Commons, & it is not worth it. Edvard Munch just has a single image for example. Paul Cézanne has a decent selection of 38 images, but I'd defer to local editors. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jheald: Johnbod is correct. The link should be added selectively, per above arguments. Wikipedia does not need 6000 links to Art UK. Coldcreation (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the link for Titian was added by User:Jane023 in March 2013 (diff), and has stayed on the article ever since. Yes there are a fair number of "copy of", "school of", and "style of" works, but these can be of interest in themselves; and the Art UK link does lead to a lot of paintings where Titian's authorship is undisputed.

Something that's been very striking going through the pages is that choice of external links seem to very very random. A lot of pages may have links to Artcyclopedia or Artnet or other sites, but their inclusion seems to be quite arbitrary. Similarly we may link to a gallery that contains some (sometimes only one) of the artist's works, or we may not. Some of these galleries may be large, like the Tate or the National Galleries of Scotland; sometimes it's just to a couple of paintings in a local or regional collection. There seems to be little guidance offered on the project page, so what links have been added or not seems to be largely haphazard.

@Randy Kryn, Coldcreation, Uberlibris, 14GTR, and Johnbod: Since I've been working down, starting with artists where there is the most content on the ArtUK site, I propose to keep going until I get to articles where there are only say 20 or 15 works on the ArtUK site. (Even so, JohnBod says it might be the page that contains a handful of images for a really obscure artist that is particuarly valuable). If the link is there, then people can consider it, and remove it if they think it is superfluous. That's probably the right way round, to get the right links on the right articles. I'd rather add the link and leave it to the actual editors of the page to decide, than make such a call myself.

I hadn't actually looked at our Titian - I could live without a link there myself. I think the best approach (which of course takes longer) is to first look at Commons, then any other museum etc lks, then see if Art UK really adds significantly. For most artists who didn't work in the UK for a good period, it won't. It might be best to start with British artists (or at least residents) only. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Also of possible interest is Wikipedia:GLAM/Your paintings/redlinks, which gives the artists with the largest numbers of works at Art UK that don't yet have an article here (or not one linked to the relevant Wikidata item anyway). Quantity is not necessarily an indicator of quality, but some of these might merit consideration. At least one (Alfred Worthington) has had an article here, that was later deleted. That might be worth reconsideration, given that there do appear to be sources about him.

Most of these seem to be still in copyright - Art UK is especially useful there as they've got permissions. But it limits the attractiveness of writing bios I expect. Not my cup of tea. Older painters tend to have been mass-imported from (usually pretty poor) out of copyright encyclopaedias like "Bryan's". The existence of works in many museums is itself some evidence of notability. Of the few really "old" ones, Henry Pickering has a Commons category & could easily support an article. Generally, the adding and removal of external links has left pretty random results. Artcyclopedia or Artnet are rarely worth it imo. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Finally it might be a moment to review the template text, and which page it targets at Art UK. See subsection below. Jheald (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It is most certianly not spam, and Coldcreation should know better than to dismiss your valued contributons, linking to an important and highly reputable organisation's site, as such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Réunion des Musées Nationaux (RMN), for comparison sake, is dedicated to promoting public collections of national museums in France. While not a charity, its goals are arguably similar to Art UK. One of the major differences is that the former—upon request by individuals, scientists, and other professionals—provides ultra-high resolution images from a database of over 800,000 images. The point is, even though orders of magnitude more useful that Art UK, you do not see RMN plastered gratuitously or indiscriminately across External links sections of thousands of Wikipedia articles, even though it would obviously be exceedingly beneficial. In the case of Art Uk—with its images of highly dubious quality—doing so would appear as nothing more than an attempt to promote the site (for whatever reason). Coldcreation (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The question isn't 'could Art UK be better?' but 'would readers benefit from visiting the website?' Where there are images complementing what may not be available via Commons the answer is of course yes. Richard Nevell (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The question is whether the link should be added to potentially in excess of 6,000 Wikipedia articles—according to Jheald—when many of these same images are already at Commons or at other websites such as RMN in much higher resolution. The answer is indubitably no. Coldcreation (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

What proportion are on Commons? Until it is 100% the link still adds value, aside from other information which may interest readers such as the collections artworks belong to, and then you're a click away from other works in the collection. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository for images or links to images (especially not 100% of them), nor is Wikipedia a WP:LINKFARM (many articles already have too many external links), nor is Wikipedia intended to promote a website, per WP:ELNO (such as appears to be the case here). Coldcreation (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"plastered gratuitously" Straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A straw man argument is something entirely different. Coldcreation (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Art UK target page, and templated text

Currently the template links to the page at Art UK showing the artist's works, eg [1].

This is not the site's main page for the artist, which would be eg [2]. The works page may be preferable, because it is more immediately information-dense, and is the comprehensive view of the artist's works on the site. However, it doesn't present so readily the list of venues with works by the artist; nor any blog posts on the site that touch on the artist. It's easy enough to make the links point to either page: which would people prefer?

Text-wise, the template currently renders as:

• 348 paintings by or after John Constable at the Art UK site

On a few pages, eg Camille Pissarro it has been being used with additional text, so:

• 54 paintings by or after Camille Pissarro at the Art UK site: works by Camille Pissarro in public British collections

which clarifies what Art UK is, at the expense of additional verbiage. Again, do people have any particular preference? Whatever we set as a default could be over-ruled on specific pages; but most pages are likely to simply present the default. Jheald (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Pigsonthewing: as having also previously edited the template. Jheald (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

On the whole, I think the current target is best. Many people will not spot the "view all 25 paintings" link. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jheald: Thank you. whatever target we link to, we definitely don't need the name twice. How about:

• 54 paintings by or after Camille Pissarro in public British collections via Art UK

which has all the information in your second version, with fewer words? Can we also change "British collections" to "UK collections"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, sooner or later, we'll have to change "paintings" to "works", as ArtUK are adding sculptures. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that going to be on the same site? Relatively few artists will have both. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It has always been my opinion that the Art UK link should just be added to the Authority control template. People can click on the link from that template. We already include the link for RKDartists, which has more explicit biographical information, but which includes a link to artworks in most cases. So if we did that it would solve the issue of the handwork involved (especially since these needed to be updated for a website change once already). Jane (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This would suit me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Whew! Just realized how many years it has been since I originally proposed that. In the meantime I have used the Art UK database to dig up lots of female artists and I appreciate all the Wikidata work on this done by User:Jheald and others. The database has proven to be remarkably clean over the years and I love the 1-1 relationship of artists & venues to their works (I wish the RKDartists had the same 1-1 relationship with RKDimages). Since all three are so well indexed, maybe the authority control template could be adjusted for the arts to be used on all three entities - people, venues (at least in the UK) and artworks (I think Sam W. did make it work for artworks so it might be worth trying out for UK paintings). Jane (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

notability-check

Dear people, in the german wikipedia we have a forum where we can tell about the articles we would like to write and other wikipedians give there opinion concerning relevance of the intended article. Noone wants to write an article which gets deleted right away. In the english wikipedia there seems no forum for this, so i hope it is okay to ask you. I would like to write on the artist Debra Ramsay - here one can find a list of her exhibitions so far: https://www.debraramsay.com/page-cv - and she is on artsy as well, here is an article from the golden foundation on her and her work https://www.goldenfoundation.org/artist-in-residency-announcements-debra-ramsay - the notability-criteria of the english wikipedia are somewhat less specific as the german "relevance-criteria" - so i just don't know wheter one could consider her as relevant or not. It would be very kind if you could give your opinion. Thanks in advance. --Gyanda (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Here it's WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:ARTIST. She looks rather marginal to me, I have to say. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, having read the criteria! Thanks! --Gyanda (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gyanda FYI the Golden Foundation is a paint company foundation - it's a very different sort of endorsement than say the Pollock-Krasner Foundation, or the Guggenheim Foundation or the Gottlieb Foundation. I looked at her CV and it seems it's WP:TOOSOON for this artist. Netherzone (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation of the Golden Foundation, i didn't know that. I agree with the "too soon", will keep her on my watchlist and check from time to time. Kind regards and again thank you for your opinion! --Gyanda (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Titian Draft:Rest on the Flight into Egypt (Titian) draft

Found this one being tossed into the bin and asked for its return so it can possibly be saved. Please have a look, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride Art Contest extended to July 31!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride Art & Artists 2019, supported by WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has now been extended to July 31. Eligible articles for this sub-contest should use be at least in part about a work in the Met's collection that is by an LGBT artist or has an LGBT theme. You can use the article-draft tool for LGBT artists in the collection, start a new article in the normal way, improve an existing article, or translate something. Winners will be shipped a Met art publication of their choice!--Pharos (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Court_painter#Requested_move_14_July_2019

Please comment there, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Francesco Carracci

Hi everyboy. I've yet published the italian page of this ancient painter (Francesco Carracci aka "it:Franceschino Carracci). Googling I've found his portrait at The British Museum here; is there any chance to import the image into Commons? Thanks a lot and, please, forgive my bad english.Flazaza (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Dana Schutz, Open Casket

Should the lede of Dana Schutz mention Open Casket? If so, with what wording? Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this conversation. Bus stop and I have been debating this in the DS Talk page. Briefly, my argument is that the lede should NOT mention Open Casket because it is not the main reason Schutz is notable. I think Open Casket should have its own section in the body of the article (as it does), but I feel that including one sentence about Open Casket in the two-sentence lede biases the article negatively. Especially the way it's now written, with a quote from another artist calling for Schutz's paintings to be "destroyed." The word "destroyed" is a highly negative way to start an encyclopedia entry on an artist as major as Schutz. I think it's probably a pretty marginal position to call for "destroying" her paintings, so why is it in the lede?

I could probably live with a mention of "her controversial painting Open Casket" in passing, like how the Andres Serrano entry mentions Piss Christ. But really I don't see why Open Casket should be in the lede at all since that is not the most important event warranting Schutz's inclusion in Wikipedia.

What do others think? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The painting Open Casket is not found to be insensitive, offensive, or disrespectful of the subject matter. The "problem" is that a white woman addressed that subject. There are examples of black people defending Dana Schutz' depiction of Emmett Till's death. Here is Whoopi Goldberg, a black woman, coming to the defense of Dana Schutz. The reader warrants being apprised in the lede that this is the article about the painter involved in a controversy over a painting. I don't think we are lending prominence to the incident. We are serving the readers' needs by providing them with a valid entry point into the biography of the artist. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this really the most important or notable thing about Dana Schutz, the artist who was very prominent for more than a decade before this controversy? You are assuming that readers will be coming into the article only because of the controversy, but I argue that that's Recentism -- her Wikipedia entry as written now is, if anything, extending the half life of the controversy by putting this in the lede (and Wikipedia extending attention to a controversy is not NPOV).

I think that putting the controversy not just in the lede, but dominating 1/3 of the lede with a long, inflammatory quote about how her paintings should be "destroyed," is definitely giving way too much prominence to this non-central incident in her career.

I hear what you're saying about orienting readers, though. What if instead of the standalone sentence with a long quote, we rewrote it to be more like the Serrano entry? So it would refer to "her controversial painting Open Casket" or some phrasing like that, but not elaborate on the controversy in the lede? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

What would you think about this phrasing as the (complete) lede?

"Dana Schutz (born 1976) is an American artist who lives and works in Brooklyn, New York. She is known for her humorous, gestural paintings that take on specific subjects or narrative situations as a point of departure. She is also notable for her controversial 2017 Whitney Biennial painting Open Casket."

I actually still think that is not as neutral as it should be, and that it extends the half life of the controversy, because by including the 2017 controversy in the lede it implies that it's one of the two most important things to know about Schutz. But I think a rewrite like that would be an improvement, at least. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Protests advocating that a painting be destroyed are not an WP:NPOV violation or a WP:BLP violation, unless we assume the biography is an advertisement for the artist. I am not "assuming that readers will be coming into the article only because of the controversy". I haven't the foggiest idea of the route that readers take to get to an article. It is not as if Open Casket is non-representative of the artist. This isn't an example of the artist's hypothetical dabbling in sound art. She works in painting. "Open Casket" is one of her paintings. You are calling it an "inflammatory quote". Basically book burning and the destroying of art are frowned upon in our culture. This is not "inflammatory". It is descriptive and informative. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, book burning is frowned upon, which is why when I casually read the Schutz entry I was so shocked that previous editors included what seems to me to be an affirmation to "destroy" her art in the lede. By giving this anti-Schutz quote from an obscure artist pride of place in the lede, it is making it seem as if this is a widely held opinion, as if a mainstream take on Schutz's work is that it is worthy of destruction.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong, maybe we're both wrong lol. I would LOVE for someone other than me or you to weigh in! Have a great Sunday! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not "anti-Schutz" at all. One of the most memorable comments about "Open Casket" involves the call for its destruction. It is a startling comment. I don't think any other single painting by Schutz has garnered this much attention. I like all of Schutz' work but a bio article on her should alert a reader right from the start which artist this is. There is no value judgement at all. It is jogging the memory of the reader who has a vague recollection of this incident and it is alerting a reader with no familiarity, of a shocking reaction to one of her paintings. Contemporary art is often provocative. Contemporary art often polarizes people—with its defenders and detractors on opposing sides. The calls for the painting's destruction is as much to Schutz' credit as it is "anti-Schutz". By the way I most certainly did not insinuate you were trying to turn this into an advertisement for Schutz. I think you misunderstand the construction of an article such as this. I wouldn't go overboard with excessive detail about the "Open Casket" incident in the lede. But the sentence you object to is in my opinion an encapsulation of an incident that serves readers' interests well—a reader would want to read on to find out more about something so odd. How often do you hear of calls for the destruction of paintings? Have a good Sunday. Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm just trying to stay cool! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I'm not saying she was trying to be provocative. In fact I do not think she was trying to be simplistically provocative. Nevertheless tackling difficult subjects can result in the polarization of viewers. This makes interesting reading. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that in print when it came out a couple years ago. Interesting article. I personally don't care for the painting, FWIW, and I think it was not cool. BUT as someone who has been editing WP for 13 years and is intimately aware of the logically nuanced, thorny issues in the construction of an article such as this, I think a long quote from an obscure rival artist about how Dana Schutz's painting deserves to be "destroyed" does not belong in the lede of her WP entry. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)