User talk:Modernist

Archives

1 2 3

Contemporary fine art

Hello Modernist. I am a beginner here, but have high education in fine arts and contemporary culture. I have noticed your interventions on almost all the pages that interest me too, and they were always full of knowledge, balanced and intelligent. I am writing to ask if I can contact you when I doubt some informations and believe that they should be deleted, or when I have some suggestions that I cannot apply yet. Best regards Artethical (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple opening images are unnecessary and contrary to Wikipedia's manual of style.

Please explain why you keep placing two images at the heading of the Unicorn article. Angel the Techrat (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Although there actually is only one image in the lead now, I left a response on the article talk page. It's not a big deal. Modernist (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bauhaus

The "context" paragraph is unacceptable as it stands. Its statements about what happened in both Russia and Germany are grossly politically biased. The stuff about "imperialism and militarism" is a political opinion. The statement that "workers and soldiers soviets" seized power in Russia is a political opinion. (Actually the Bolshevik Party seized power.) More importantly, there is no relationship shown between these events and the founding of Bauhaus. Was Bauhaus founded in response to the Russian revolution? Was it run by workers and soldiers soviets? Was Gropius a communist? No, no and no. So what was the connection? If you want to retain this paragraph, it must be fixed. If not, I will delete it again. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please leave your remarks on the article talk page. I would suggest that you - rewrite the paragraph. I'm moving these remarks there. Thank you. Modernist (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(UTC)

Women artists

Hi Modernist. If you are interested, you might want to lend a hand to the '21st century' section, as well. Cheers, JNW (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a look. Modernist (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I confess I tend to think of Ryder as 19th century, but have no trouble thinking of Klimt, who died only a year later, as 20th century. Ryder's romantic mysticism was for so long out of favor, and maybe the awful condition and darkening of his work makes him seem more like an old master. Take care, JNW (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was always struck by Pollock's comment that Ryder was the American painter that interested him the most. Made me see his forms as ultra-modernist, ahead of his time, the mystical forerunner of Rothko and Still, a little like the abstractions of Augustus Vincent Tack. Modernist (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his forms are extremely abstracted, as if the only thing that mattered for him was conveying an emotional truth through evocative shape. I read that he was once asked whether his paintings were meant to portray day or night, and he said he'd never thought about it. The 20th century artist with whom I see the closest connection is Marsden Hartley, who early on was very influenced by Ryder. I think they met. JNW (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I see now that you added that very information on their meeting to Hartley's bio. Well done. JNW (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Hartley idolized Ryder, followed him around for a while. One of my favorite early modernists, - under appreciated. Modernist (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyber-terrorism

Hi Modernist. Is there any specific reason why you reverted the work I had done on this subject ? Maybe you know someone who will do the cleanup so the article is understandable worldwide. Lars 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All I saw you put there was illegible. Revert my edit if you think you improved the article. Your edits verge on vandalism....I did it for you. Modernist (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.

File:Godzilla(01)reverse.jpg

Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!" Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.

Modernist Thank you for casting the 54th yea vote.

     "The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler

Paul Klee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus of old (talk • contribs) 01:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've repeatedly deleted the statement. You Icarus of old (talk placed it, Stop this nonsense. Modernist (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, dyslexia. I thought I was getting rid of the absurd statement as well. I'm sorry for any confusion. Thanks for being judicious in your edits, and have a wonderful day. Icarus of old (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Abstract art

20:09, 18 February 2008 Modernist (Talk | contribs) m (6,467 bytes) (Reverted edits by Sardanaphalus (talk) to last version by SieBot)

Pourquoi? For one thing, the article is once again categorized as a template... Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed all the language links disappeared with your edit. As you say Pourquoi? Am I missing something? Modernist (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Tyrenius (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ty - TY :)Modernist (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto! Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Art

Hi Modernist. Your thoughts re: the current editing disagreement at Art would be appreciated. Thanks, 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)JNW (talk)

Someone reverted the edits, I left a comment. Modernist (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll give it some thought. Modernist (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2008

can you look at Rothko

Hi modernist, can you look at the change in Rothko page from: 02:33, 25 February 2008 24.47.208.127 (Talk) (58,755 bytes) (→Suicide: added external link to Marlborough Gallery (Marlborough Fine Art)) (undo)-------is this the place for a link to this gallery site? I don't know yet how to think on such matters--will you have a look? Contemplating21 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link, considering the scandal I don't see why the article should be linked to Marlborough. Good catch..Modernist (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

History of painting

I just added some Mayan paintings. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I was able to add a couple of pics each for the Teotihuacan site and the Aztecs, most of the Central American paintings are from the Mayas; I'm guessing, with this slant in representation from Wikimedia Commons, that the Mayas had a much more extensive mural tradition than their neighbors, predecessors, and successors. I could be wholly incorrect, though. In any case, I've used what was most available.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Maya additions are great. I will continue to search for other imagery as well. Thanks, - Modernist (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Maurice Denis, Les Nabis, Jules Lefebvre‎, Agnes Martin

Thanks for the excellent assists and sharpenings. You do an immense amount of work on wiki, and as a grateful user I wanted to express my appreciation. Fenbaud (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, its nice to be appreciated. Do your best and you'll be fine. Modernist (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Aintsemic.

What, if any, are your thoughts on this fellow? I have, quite frankly, grown tired of his penchant for adding links to "Asemic writing" to every article he thinks it is somehow relevant. It seems that his whole purpose for being on Wikipedia is to promote this so-called avant-garde movement. I intend to put a stop to this. First, I am going to put the asemic writing article up for AfD. After that, it will be much easier to justify reverting his edits because I will have shown the movement to be nonnotable. Have you any thoughts on the matter? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like WP:OR and I usually revert when I run across him on an inappropriate page like Surrealism. Give AfD a try. Modernist (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will probably do so tomorrow, since a snow storm is supposed to bury me anyway. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems a valid subject (not necessarily "movement") where refs could be found.[1] More a case of cleaning up the article, I would have thought. Ty 05:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The term itself is a neologism invented by Tim Gaze of Adelaide, Australia, who created the asemic.com webpage. My suspicion (unproven, obviously) is that he is also Aintsemic, who, as I said above, seems to be on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of spreading word about asemic writing. The phenomenon of non-semantic "writing" is very real, and very old, but the term is a very recent neologism, and, as for the "movement," it is an utter figment. Neologism, plus no references, plus conflict-of-interest (Aintsemic has 8 c-o-i reports) adds up to a highly questionable article, at least to my mind. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The starting point is 17,200 google results.[2] This is a large number. It appears in some credible, even if arcane, places:

The Rustle of Language - Google Books Result by Roland Barthes - 1989 - Language Arts & Disciplines ... finds no textual contour; the code is simply interrupted: an asemic word is created, a pure signifier; for example, instead of writing "officer," I ...[3]

Dissemination - Google Books Result by Jacques Derrida - 2004 - Philosophy ... the complication according to which the supplementary mark of the blank (the asemic spacing) applies itself to the set of white things (the full semic ...[4]

Derrida and Religion: Other Testaments - Google Books Result by Yvonne Sherwood, Kevin Hart - 2005 - Religion - 424 pages ... a purely physical text from which all trace of meaning (the logos) has been removed, in which no meaning could ever appear — an asemic text. ...[5]

Joseph G. Kronick - Philosophy as Autobiography: The Confessions ...As an excess that belongs to any semic entity, the fold folds back, creasing the blank or virgin sheet, to use Mallarmé's metaphors for asemic presence. ...[6] (The Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Milton S. Eisenhower Library)

The Philosophical Imaginary - Google Books Result by Michele Le Doeuff - 2002 - Philosophy - 335 pages Conversely, the polysemic—asemic trait which we have been observing betrays the fact that the text is not directly receivable in its intended univocity. ...[7]

Premises: Essays on Philosophy and Literature from Kant to Celan - Google Books Result by Werner Hamacher - 1999 - Philosophy - 408 pages ... of the asemic, ...[8]

Untwisting the Serpent: Modernism in Music, Literature, and Other Arts - Google Books Result by Daniel Albright - 2000 - Philosophy - 410 pages A gestus always struggles to retain its efficacy, its pointedness, its incision, against a general asemic blur, a confusion that tends to swallow up all ...[9]

asemic calligraphy, apparently WSB's - William S. Burroughs papers, Ohio State University.[10]

JSTOR: Sartre et la mise en signe... verbal acrobatics which superficially characterize the best of our modern poetry (witness Maurice Roche's playful 'asemic stereog- raphy,' for example).[11]

The last example is a 1983 publication, so it is not a "recent neologism". The article is not about the "movement" but about the type of creativity described by the term, which, as in the examples above, is verifiable.

There is a relevant text from the Newsletter of the Library, School of Art, Media and Design, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK: Over from Argentina, Mirtha Dermisache will be showing a selection of works published since the beginning of the seventies, (see dbqp visualising poetics, http://dbqp.blogspot.com/2005/02/importance-of-documental-structure-to.html - Mirtha Dermisache and asemic writing) and an installation in bookartbookshop that combines a publishing process (printing, edition and sale) with a conceptual intervention. The first of these interventions took place in Buenos Aires in 2004, the second in Paris. We are extremely honoured to be the third context for her work.[12] The blog it references is by Geof Huth.[13]

Ty 07:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Seems notable after all. Actually I looked into this briefly a few months ago - maybe a year ago - its hard to keep track of time, and it still doesn't resonate with me as Surrealism or Concrete Poetry, although it is a type of automatic writing of a kind, like Cy Twombly more or less, I don't think of Bill Burroughs as a Surrealist either, for that matter. Sort of writing in tongues.  :) thanks - Ty - Modernist (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the research, Tyrenius. Clearly, I was under a misapprehension as to the article and the topic. What this seems to emphasize, though, is how poorly the article was written, and how little effort has been made to improve it. Rather than adding "asemic writing" to other articles where it is not appropriate, Aintsemic could have been improving the article itself. It does seem clear, though, that there is no basis for the claim of a 21st century avant-garde movement. Therefore, as I work on the article---which is clearly not eligible for AfD---I will be removing that section. Thanks again, for the work [User:Tyrenius|Ty]]. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Romanticism.

Do you have any opinion on the placement of the etymology of romance/romantic in the lede of the Romanticism article? The information might be of importance, but I think it could be put down a little further, not adding unnecessary length to the lede. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you make some changes there, I'll take a look...Modernist (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Sometime in the next day or two. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix to the columns in the see also section. I was not at all satisfied with the job I'd done, but was simply too tired to keep fighting with it. I knew I was going about it in the wrong way, but was buggered if I could figure out the right way. At any rate, I thank you. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems okay now. Modernist (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Velázquez

Hey Modernist, thanks for all your help with Friedrich, it was great to see your edits. If you have the time and energy, can you take a look at Venus; I'm hoping to push it to FAC in the next two weeks. Best, Ceoil (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana's request for bureaucratship

Dear Modernist, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Discospinster

Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster _talk 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Magritte

Hiya. Just wondering why you reverted my edits for Rene Magritte. Blackjanedavey (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think your infobox was really good, I'd like to see a lead image, and I was a little uneasy about the gallery being five wide. I added the infobox again with a lead image. Thanks, Modernist (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Gallery Neo-Impressionism

I see you have again forced a specific size for gallery. This may work well on your desktop, but definitely not on all. Therefore, please reconsider that a default setting may allow a better effect on the screens of other collaborators. All the best, --rpd (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page - the gallery was altered because of your erroneous edits. I've changed it back now thanks to my changes. Perhaps you should be more careful in the future. Modernist (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Tyrenius#Response. Ty 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Venus

Was promoted last night. Thanks for all your input and insight, and hope to work with you again. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to you also, thanks...Modernist (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I apologise for troubles caused by my edits, and be assured I appreciate your contributions: You are doing a brillant job, to my opinion. As far as I see, a set of technical problems was involved, too. For the time to come, I offer you my hand, my criticism (nobody is perfect) and my experience.--rpd (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tremendous respect for you too. I'm aware of the experienced and valuable work you've done here. Apology accepted, and please accept mine to you. I lost it a little yesterday. Modernist (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten, and buried. Let's cooperate - tell me if you need support, information, or anything else: I am prepared to help as far as I can,--rpd (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd be happy to work with you, and not against you, and vice versa. Lets do our best. Modernist (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate images

---

Apologies if my edits are off the mark, as I am new to editing wikipedia, I saw that action painting and Japanese pop art both lacked images. May I ask what makes certain images "inappropriate"? The images used are by anonymous artists and are released under a share alike license from a a non profit anonymous arts organization. Where appropriate, I would think that those would be better than using thumbnails of copyrighted art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenbabyhead (talk • contribs) 05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The images need to be notable, and verifiable as fitting the article it is added to. A pop art image should be a notable work of pop art by a notable pop artist. Modernist (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - Could you please have a short look ?

Hello Modernist, could you help me please? I had a problem with NPOV on the article Christiaan Tonnis.
I tried my best and think it isn't brilliant now, but OK.
I also asked Tyrenius. Could you please have a short look too?
Are there too many quotation marks in it? Or should the ref numbers (without using quotation marks) be enough?
Thank you very much!
Blaise Mann (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Modernist, thank you very much for your fast help and encouraging words -

I will do as you said for a further improvement :-)

Thank you again, best wishes! Blaise Mann (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Modernism references

I have a question about one of the references you added: is Art & Auction a magazine? I have never heard of it, but I was a little confused by the formatting of the reference, and did not want to make any changes until I checked with you. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its becomming a very popular and interesting publication, very much about contemporary art as it happens now, the market, the newest and latest etc. The cites concerned the retirement of Robert Pincus Witten who coined the phrase Postminimalism in the 1960s. I'd prefer a better source but the article was at hand at the time. Thanks..Modernist (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aahhh... definitely something I should look into. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I recommend it..Modernist (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How long has it been in print? I am quite certain I've not seen it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Read all about Art & Auction, LTB Media and the enterprises of Louise MacBain. Ty 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ty, Modernist (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

David Prentice

Hi, thanks for reverting my linking to David Prentice from Monochrome painting, Lyrical Abstraction and Park Place Gallery. I hadn't realised there was another artist with the same name. I was in the process of creating a stub for the American David Prentice to avoid any repeat of this confusion (and so that the English one could have a dab link at the top), but then I got cold feet about whether I'd got the right guy this time round either.

This guy [14] [15] is called David Prentice and is certainly American, but from the gallery page on his website [16] his work doesn't appear particularly monochrome or lyrically abstract.

If this isn't the right David Prentice either, then I'm struggling to find any mention of a third one anywhere on the web. Any suggestions? JimmyGuano (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the David Prentice (b. 1943) who is currently doing landscape paintings and is the artist whose website you linked [17] is the same David Prentice who during the 1960s showed his Monochromatic abstract paintings at Park Place Gallery, and who was considered a Lyrical Abstractionist painter during the late 1960s. During the mid 1980s he gave up abstraction for landscape painting and he moved to Japan, part of the time. He's American and travels between New York and Japan. I hope this helps.Modernist (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll go ahead and create the new article. It's eerie how similar the the two David Prentices' careers are - the English one also started off painting abstracts in the 60s, and now paints more representational landscapes. Makes me feel a bit less daft for confusing them. JimmyGuano (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

During the 1960s he became known for his monochromatic white paintings, and in group exhibitions on his bio in 1972 he had a 2-man show in LA with his white paintings and Ad Reinhardt's black paintings. His 1960s abstractions were like the backgrounds in his paintings Flock III, and Smile, (on his website). Modernist (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

John Steuart Curry

The revert you performed on John Steuart Curry reverted to an article containing information copy/pastd from a WP: article. That revert has been reverted. Happy editing! I do not respond on other's talk pages, only on mine --Atyndall93 ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ARE YOU KIDDING-look at the article, I reverted it again to the version by Bongwarrior. The article has been seriously vandalized by the editor you reverted my correction to....Modernist (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See the top and bottom of this you'll see that the author put "Subject's popular name (birthdate – death) can be a lead-in to the subject's real, formal, or extended name. Describe the subject's nationality and profession(s) in which the subject is most notable. Provide a description of the subject's major contributions in the immediately relevant field(s) of notable expertise." at the top and other WP: page content at the bottom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atyndall (talk • contribs) 12:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the article, Modernist (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

joining a project

hi modernist is there a procedure to join the "Category:WikiProject Visual arts participants"? or does one join by adding the category in the userpage Talk? many thanksArtethical (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you. I try to put the templete but don't know how. please give me a hand on that. so many thanks.Artethical (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added some bits... Ty 00:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Can you have a look at the Frida Kahlo page, I separated between references and biblioArtethical (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

the reason

the reason was that there is a new person, who only visited this page, and he seems to be interested, perhaps against, i do not figure this out. I followed to his page and saw that he is doing only this page. This is one of the pages that i watch regularly because I look at certain artists and at contemporary women artists that are followed by either Kraus or Pollock regularly. I do not think that this matters, but it looked like a beginning of soething strange. maybe I am wrong. I will continue to watch this page. Thanks.Artethical (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Its ok, keep an eye out, if you need help there let me know..Modernist (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I will keep an eye. But I also want to say something more. Look for example at our young male british artists, for example: "Damien Hirst (born June 7, 1965) is an English artist and the most prominent of the group that has been dubbed "Young British Artists" (or YBAs). Hirst dominated the art scene in Britain during the 1990s and is internationally renowned. Now, you see, nobody wants to take the words "most prominent" "internationaly renowned" even "dominated". And the word renowen or major is quite regular with most of the important contemporary artists pages. I am not sure that we should take these words out from some women artists who reached major standard, and leave it with others. perhaps you can consider it again? I am going to check on some other contemporary artists' pages to get the feelingArtethical (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clement Greenberg is described as influential and he was, Hirst these days is prominent to say the least, I'd describe someone like Louise Bourgeois or Louise Nevelson, or Alice Neel as leading, or well known or prominent. Major is a term I'd use in describing a school of art or someone like Jackson Pollock, a major abstract expressionist or Pablo Picasso a major force in Cubism. Modernist (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to share with you, I looked at the sites of Pollock and Picasso, and then, of Bourgois and Nevelson. I was surprised, I was so sad to see how little we have, relatively, on these great women artists. For the moment. Artethical (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Its actually across the board, both men and women artists, old and new that need intelligent and accurate and more complete work..do your best. Modernist (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging me. That's why I try to keep an eye at least on those sites that I care about and which are well done, or are on their way to become very serious source, adding more information from my research. As you see, I try, I continueArtethical (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:PEACOCK. Ty 01:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reginald Marsh etc.

Apropos your comment on the Reginald Marsh talk page, I'd noticed this recent activity too, and my impression--based on the home-cooked, choppy writing style evident in the expanded John French Sloan article--is that we may be looking at the results of a class project. The mid-term timing is suggestive. Let's hope these welcome expansions pass the copyvio test. The uneven writing style in the Arthur Dove edits does have the feel of scattered patches of lifted prose set into otherwise self-written material, may need careful vetting--I haven't taken a good look at the others yet. Ewulp (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Third of May 1808

Hi Modernist, I have begun expansion of Goya's Third of May, in hopes that you and some of the other all-stars might be interested in turning it into featured article material over the next few weeks. I have used few sources, so there is much work to be done. It only occurred to me in the last week that May 3 will be the 200th anniversary of the event, so it would be great if this could be the FA for the day. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it my best, It's always fun to work with the group, thanks...Modernist (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have a patalogical fear of leads, do you want to have a go at expanding this? I think the article is sufficently developed now that it can be summarised. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can add to improve what looks terrific, I'll try. Modernist (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually two sentences per section is sufficent. Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes that can be daunting. You are doing very well - although I do enjoy the process, and how it comes together. Modernist (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Satisfying isn't it, seeing the article develop through the different stages. I was off-line for most of last week, and it was great to return after 5 days and see how much work had been done, and how far the page had developed. That said, I'd really like to see it nomed within a week, so we have a shot at main page for 03 may. More or less I think its there re content, but it has structural issues (understandable when content is being added by a number of people) and it needs a full copyedit. Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing about Goya is that he really is such a modernist painter, maybe thats where it really starts, although Rembrandt and El Greco figure in there too. But The Maja and the Naked Maja, the Third of May, and the etchings are sooooo outrageously unique, defiant and prescient. He's like a combination of Velazquez, Manet and Courbet with a demonic spin. I'll do some copyediting for now. Modernist (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We really need to refocus on Friedirch as the next collobartion, but after that I have loosely talked to JNW about Seurat's Bathers (also covered by Clark), and would very much like to tackle the Monia Lisa (with Amanda). Do you have favourites to suggest? Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes Friedrich is getting done, the Seurat is cool, Mona Lisa doesn't really turn me on but it's important I would love to do Guernica, and Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, but Manet's Olympia and its initial rejection by the Louvre and the conservative salon and powers that be has really always interested me, and the Caillebotte bequest is an interesting one, although the Monet late Water Lilies, that languished unappreciated for thirty years would also be interesting. Modernist (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha; if only human life span was 190 years! So much to cover...Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is what jumps out at me, and when you mentioned Monet, I thought of Turner's sea scapes; god, so many choices. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK with the group we can do it all. Although Picasso images are proving to be tough to work with because of copyrights and estate issues. Olympia, maybe or late Monet - what a story. Modernist (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Modernist, I'm going to tackle The Garden of Earthly Delights first, any help would be appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I hope that makes sense.[18] Ty 11:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Creeft ref doesn't work. Ty 12:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Ty 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Davis

Do you have a source for Ronald Davis living in Taos? If so, please add it to his article and then restore him to the Taos page. I've removed him because there's nothing on his article (sourced or unsourced) that says anything about Taos at all. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up for me. The closest I've been to New Mexico is Minneola, Kansas, so I have virtually no knowledge of the state personally, and I didn't remember about AH (if I'd known it before). Since I do a lot of editing, I didn't read the article: I simply ran a search, and when it found no instances of "Taos", I concluded that it didn't mention it. Thanks again! Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem..Modernist (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Guernica after Rubens...

Hi modernist, I am not trying to be annoying and I am not Familiar with how to, and this is not personnel research, it is hidden facts. Please either tell me exactly what to do, or research the facts yourself so that you can add this IMPORTANT information to the Guernica page. thank you. Rubensrevenge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubensrevenge (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen, it is not nonsense. I tried to put a reference in but I didn't do it right. First of all look at the two paintings. Second read the book "Picasso's Guernica After Ruben's Horrors of War" by Alice Tankard. Also see if you can find the pre-drawings for Guernica. If you actually take the time to do this, you might take me more seriously. Or you can continue to let the page misrepresent the painting.Rubensrevenge (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is not how important you personally think it is or isn't, the point is that on a page dedicated to Guernica, don't you think it should say what inspired the composition and characters... Why would you block me for desiring referenced material anyway? Rubensrevenge (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't post here again...WP:DFTT Modernist (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Modernist, I was brought here because of a thread at The Editor Assistance Board. I've pointed out a source and explained a better way for Rubensrevenge to phrase the information he's looking to add. Please take a look at the thread and the source. Additionally, I remember reading similar information about Picasso using Rubens' painting as a reference in an old issue of Art Journal magazine. I'll try to dig it out of my library and give the reference on the talk page. In any event, I agree that this editor has some of his facts wrong, but I think there is some truth to the underlying information and we should work with this editor to include it. Do you agree?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just placed a big run down of sources on the Guernica's talk page. I agree that the editor dropped the ball on several counts, but I think there's some information that can be salvaged from this. Let me know your thoughts.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just glanced at the diffs for the reverts and like I said, there was some missing the mark as far as when "inspiration" meant in this instance.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, lets all stop feeding the trolls. Modernist (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Four Freedoms

I am not sure if Norman Rockwell is within your bailiwick, but I have recently created Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell), Freedom of Speech (painting), Freedom to Worship (painting) and Freedom from Want (painting). Feel free to come by and contribute.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look..Thanks Tony...Modernist (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say that I don't have much to add there, and the referencing style is beyond me..Modernist (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation of Portuguese article

Hello, Modernist. I'm with a doubt and I thought that you perhaps could help me. I'm working in the translation of an article from the Portuguese Wikipedia about the pt:Museu de Arte Contemporânea da Universidade de São Paulo. I'm not sure about what are the rules for translating the title of the article. Unlike the Museu de Arte de São Paulo, which has always had an alternative English name in foreign exhibitions, it seems that there's no historical use of English names for this museum. Even so, I have found some titles for the museum such as "Museum of Contemporary Art of the University of São Paulo", in a page hosted in the institution's official website. But it sounded really ackward to me. What do you believe would the best thing to do in this case, mantain the original Portuguese name or use this (or other) translation? Thanks. Dornicke (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dornicke (talk), I think for now the best idea is to use Museum of Contemporary Art, University of São Paulo, although the original Portuguese name is ok too. I think the translated English version is fine, and will be more easily grasped here. I hope that helps. Modernist (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does seems to be a good name to be used here. Thanks. Dornicke (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

With regards to warnings to User:213.250.60.124

Hi Modernist. I realize that this edit was well intentioned, but adding tags to articles is not vandalism and your edit was really biting a new user. Could I ask you to be a little more careful in your use of warnings. Thanks, Gwernol 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As you know he/she really should not tag any articles at this stage of the game. And to repeatedly do it after gentle warnings....not cool. However if you are on it I'll back off..Modernist (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

quick note, delete as desired.

Modernist, just to save you some time, don't bother banning the previous IP, or this one for that matter, the ISP I use has more of them than you could shake a ban-stick at, if I leave, it will be of *My* own choice and volition, not because someone who doesn't know diddly about a religion's article tries to ban me.

Regards, Anonymous poster for mary baker eddy "article" (not a "wikipedian", thereby cannot be held to the 3RR policy.) 172.192.57.37 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Your note made me laugh, and given my recent experiences in academia, anything to smile about is a blessing. Cheers, JNW (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well somehow we gotta find a way to laugh once in a while... Modernist (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mobile

Hi Modernist, why should I remove the, now correct, link? Greetings--GerardusS (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Goya II

As we all have Goya books to hand, I reckon we could put together Saturn Devouring His Son fairly easily. Interested? Ceoil (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard to resist, I'll give it a shot...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Monet

Hi Modernist: I think these copyedits [19] were made in good faith, and attempted to address what currently reads like a confusing chronology. I'm thinking of having a go at the 'Later life', but would like to consult with you first. Great work on May 3rd. JNW (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Merci. Considering the scope of contributions made under your user name, I am convinced that you employ an office of educated art historians, each devoted to a different specialty of the visual arts. More soon. Cheers, JNW (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The shouting is over

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For all you work in bring The Third of May 1808‎ to where it is. T'was an honour to work with you, Sir/Madam. Ceoil (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

The Third of May 1808 (II)

Great news! My contribution was miniscule but you, JNW, Johnbod, Ceoil & the others made the outcome inevitable. Well deserved all around. Ewulp (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Condratulations yourself. More please! Ceoil (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Third of May 1808

Thank you, Modernist, for all of your contributions to The 3rd, which were instrumental in getting the piece to FA status. If it reaches the main page next weekend, I would like all the contributing editors to meet in a pub to celebrate. Barring that, since I gather that some live in Ireland, some in Australia, some in England, and some in the U.S., a virtual toast will be in order. Cheers, JNW (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

JNW, in the clothing he wears while editing.

I'll be there...by the way who's your tailor? Modernist (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But of course, [20]. JNW (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

An evening for celebration! Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Abstract art

I'm wondering if we need to go to RfC on this? This is quickly going to turn into a revert war and judging from the talk page comments, the editor(s) may not be willing to be civil. I'm busy this morning (it's 8:35 a.m. my time), but I will work on this later today. I will first straighten out the talk page comments, since the editor(s) in question seem to be plunking their comments anywhere. Second, I'll mention at an RfC on the talk page and at the VisArts Project talk page and see if others agree, or if we can handle this "in-house" amongst the art editors. freshacconcispeaktome 12:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I sent the IP a welcome and I'll stay tuned.Modernist (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Garden of Earthly Delights

Thank you for the extensive copy edit. Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Its coming together...you've done a great job there also..Modernist (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have gotten our posse! Do you think the Flood should link to Deluge (mythology) or Noah's Ark? The latter is an FA. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I like Great Flood goes to Deluge (mythology) rather than Noah's Ark partially because Noah's Ark is contained in the Deluge, and Noah's Ark is so much about the two by two, although the morality tale is apropos, so maybe we should work in both if the opportunity presents itself..my first choice is the Deluge.. Modernist (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That was my first choice as well. I justed asked Outriggr about other sections that could be added[21], not that thoes there at the moment are complete. Any ideas? Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What you think of putting "sources and context" before "Triptych". It seems more logical to me to establish context before describing the content. Ceoil (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Abstract expressionism

Modernist, you wrote: I'm really not interested in an edit war - so I will assume good faith, but, why delete sculpture from Abstract expressionism? David Smith, Noguchi, Nevelson and even Di Suvero are well documented as being a crucial part of Abstract expressionism - read Irving Sandler, and the article is about an era not only about painting. The Gorky painting that you deleted as you probably know has been disputed before, and in lieu of a more recent image has been agreed upon to remain...However perhaps inadvertantly your last edit wiped out nearly half of the entire article. Including all the references, categories, see also links etc. I've restored it. Please discuss removals on the talk page, thank you...Modernist (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If David Smith, Noguchi, Nevelson and Di Suvero are Abstract Expressionists, there is not a word to justify their work, or any other sculpture, being in the article. If you disagree with the deletion of the images, put them back....but I would rather something was added to the article (with supporting refs) first.

I am not familiar with prior disputes over the Gorky painting...or agreements about leaving it. (Although he may have been an Abstract Expressionist, that particular painting does not meet any definition of "abstract" that I am familiar with.) Sorry about deleting any refs and links, that was unintentional. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that the sculptors you listed are considered Abstract Expressionists; but, in my view, probably the most truly Abstract Expressionist sculptor was Peter Voulkos, because clay and the firing process allowed their characteristic work process.

Once again, I regret any anguish I caused you by my deletions to the article -- both the intentional and the unintentional ones. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No harm done, Malcolm, keep up your good work.Modernist (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Chagall

Why did you revert the edits to the page discussing the windows at the Union Church of Pocatino Hills? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.177.90.3 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I was mistaken and your edits have been restored..Modernist (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulpian (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Four Freedoms

May I request your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Four_Freedoms_.28Norman_Rockwell.29.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Please come see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Four_Freedoms_.28Norman_Rockwell.29_part_2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Brian Sherwin

Hi. I've been working on a bio about Brian Sherwin. Can you give me some feedback about this bio? My plan is to contribute bios for other art bloggers/writers of note like Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene once I finish with the Sherwin bio. This is my first major contribution to wikipedia so any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Sorry but it doesn't seem worthwhile..although I made a comment here: [22]Modernist (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Betsy Ross, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse ME? What edit are you talking about? The one I fixed? Claypole - Claypoole? Seems correct according to several earlier versions. Surely you should check your computer..Modernist (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I was reporting this vandalism by another editor and accidentally posted the warning to you. Sorry for the confusion! - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No harm done, Modernist (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of avant-garde artists

When or if you have a moment, I would appreciate your opinion over there, as I am apparently not making any headway with an anon who is convinced that avant-garde and experimental are two separate and unrelated things. He seems to feel a musician, etc., is either one or the other. What do you think? Thanks for your time, as always. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of musical events

In this article only one incident is mentioned for each year. On what basis one incident is being singled out? There may be some more equally significant events. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ronaldreed

Just a note that I slightly reformatted your message at User talk:Ronaldreed so it doesn't parse the {{hangon}} template, otherwise it shows up as at CAT:CSD. Regards – Zedla (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks..Modernist (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Francis Bacon (painter)

Please could you explain why you reverted this edit? I brought the heading capitalisation in line with the Manual of Style, and I removed a random headline which, apropos of nothing, had been stuck in with the references - how does that belong there? Thanks, 81.151.191.208 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, Thank you..Modernist (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York

You had participated at the original discussion of the People from Greenwich Village, New York category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 30. The original decision to delete was overturned at WP:DRV and is now being discussed again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19#New York places categories. Your participation will help ensure that a broader consensus can be reached on this matter. Alansohn (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Pong

Mail....Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to email you the pdfs a few times and my mails keep on bouncing. Strange. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that...I have gotten emails there recently. I've been meaning to ask you about the legacy section. Maybe we should add it. It can be worked in the article I think. Modernist (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try the mail again. Let me have a crack at the section again tonight; but yeah we should transfer over fairly soon. Over my dead body, by the way are we going to loose the Arcimboldo image! Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its totally apropos...I'll check my mail tonight..thanks.Modernist (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Don'T bother. Bounced again :( Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess is the article has some specific mentions of Miro paintings that were influenced by the garden - maybe you can mention them in legacy, if I know the paintings I'll write something more about them. I was hoping that the article mentions Dali too. Modernist (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this the Moray article? Kafka Liz (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Liz thats my understanding..Modernist (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find it to be quite as helpful as I had hoped it would be, but perhaps you can get more out of it. She mainly discusses "The Tilled Field" and "Catalan Landscape" (which she considers primarily influenced by 'The Haywain". If you email me, I can try sending it on to you too. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

a "Dali + bosch + JSTOR" google gives 1 and two. <a-hem> There is also this, which tells us Herbert Read analysised the connection between the two. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we should have a little Dali in there for flavor...I'll give Liz a buzz.Modernist (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mail all round. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You the [Wo]man! Thanks!Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I got the article from Liz, but only the text from Ceoil's message, the attachments didn't come through. I think it might be easier now, I made some adjustments. Modernist (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Modernist, I think the text is ok now to carry into the article. Can you do the honors and we can take it from there. Nice work on this by the way! Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! Wow, now we've got a legacy section..I was a little worried about the refs - but you guys were both brilliant, high five. Modernist (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll do some reading tonight and tomorrow, I'll add something if it's needed. Thanks again..Modernist (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm delighted; result after a torturous few days! Um, can we add a Dali or Miro img? Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Miro would be great, lets add both. I'll write text if the pictures are there...Modernist (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dali would be preferable as it is mentioned. When we get to the satge of discussing both (and we will), we can add the Miro. Can you give me links though, Modernist, as I'm not familiar - or interested - in surrealis and don't know the work. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Persistence of Memory is Dali's most famous image: [23] peruse the Salvador Dali page. There was a painting I was looking at a few days ago in conjunction with something I read about Bosch but the Persistence of Memory with time melting relates to the refs...this one - The Great Masturbator was connected to Bosch in one of the essays on the work page.. [24]Modernist (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As the images will be fair use, we'll have to tie them in fairly closely in the text though. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you have cites for Magritte and Ernst? Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually no - Ernst apparently published an article about the artists including Bosch who were influential to him, I recently read about Magritte also being very high on The Bosch paintings he saw. Not surprising because he's Belgian and I'm sure Breughel and Bosch were a presence in the museums there. I'll try to ref them, and if you see something grab it. Modernist (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do...Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks great. Excellent work! Kafka Liz (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Bosch

	The Barnstar of Cultural Transcendence
	Awarding this barnstar to Modernist for all his/her contributions, hard work and effort in bringing The Garden of Earthly Delights to FA. In particular, the work you did in creating the legacy section was very impressive. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Was great working with you again, Modernist. Next please! Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated...Thank you. Modernist (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Swimmtastic

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Replicas of Michelangelo's David (2nd nomination) was offensive, and seemingly unfounded. Please do not make the assumption that number of edits equates with the credibility of a particular user, nor with the credibility of the actual person behind the user. User:Swimmtastic appeared make multiple attempts to address the arguments with some amount of logic and reasoning founded in WP policy/guidelines. While I can't necessarily agree with the deletion, Swimmtastic made the effort to respond to users in a manner consistent with the purpose of the debate. If that user is in fact as new as the account is, then as an experienced editor you shouldn't be "biting". And if not, then perhaps the user has had other accounts and more edits than you or anyone else in the debate. Aside from that, I fail to see where there are "a lot of complaints". The Swimmtastic userpage has only two comments on the same issue. The issue of respect isn't applicable in the debate, in part because the debate is not a vote. The mistake was leading each comment with a "delete" or "speedy delete" apparently in response to the preceding !vote. A critical aspect of the debate is to pursue multiple and opposing points of view, even if one of those is only represented by a single user. It appears that by nominating this article, Swimmtastic has helped to improve it, attracting attention and bringing focus to a previously poorly constructed piece. And perhaps the opinion not being respected is that of Swimmtastic by a group of editors working in visual arts, not open to even the possibility that this article could be deleted. The cooperation of many people reaching a consensus is a key element of WP. Consensus doesn't occur without discussion and debate. I sincerely hope that you reconsider your attitude towards editors that appear and may or may not be new.--Jefff99999 (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input..I'll keep it in mind. Modernist (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[25] Ty 03:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be remarkable sudden cluster of new editors all supporting each other with advanced wiki ability and yet somehow making edits that appear to conform to policy and whose end result is disruption. Ty 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that - which was actually why I made the comment..It looked like an experienced editor - Thanks for that input, Ty, clearly there should be another rule - Don't Bite The Regulars...they do work hard. Modernist (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And if not, then perhaps the user has had other accounts and more edits than you or anyone else in the debate. - interesting comment. Modernist (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out the other "delete" in that debate at User talk:Wiki11790. Ty 04:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ty - Same guy that handed out this barnstar [26]. I noticed his blanking mania during the AfD, (you worked overtime on that one) undoing his damage, - and I'll keep an eye on the AN/I. Modernist (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel

Hi Modernist, any interest in working together on the above. It will be a difficult one, but I think could be very satisfying as there are so many angles to consider. (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Ceoil

A big job - It's not my best subject, I'll give it a look - there is this too: Sistine Chapel ceiling and several related articles as I'm sure you know..Modernist (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My first choice was the ceiling, and I bought a few books on that during the week. The interplay between Michelangelo and Julius was very bitter and dramatic, I might scale down to that yet, but for the moment I think this might be a good "summary style" page. We'll see. Thanks for the edits. Ceoil (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Garden of Earthly Delights/Influence

Was this subpage meant to be kept somewhere? I don't think it's meant to be in mainspace. Just asking u as you were one of the editors of it, assume someone moved it there recently. Thanx--Bsnowball (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually its our work page for the legacy section of The Garden of Earthly Delights. Ceoil (talk), Johnbod (talk), Kafka Liz (talk) and me. I'm not sure that we are done yet so it should probably remain there for a while longer. If you can add information, then please work there also. Thanks - Modernist (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Visual Arts Template

Curious why you reverted my edit where I added a visual art template to types of visual art (i.e. Drawing)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Rodgers (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

See discussion here:[27]..Modernist (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Years of Art

Thanks for the thanks and the tip on "inuse" - yesterday was the first time I had received speedy deletion notices and was worried with the number of pages I was creating that I would be spending more time defending the content than actually creating. I will keep that in mind for the future. I'm just happy that all uncreated articles under List of years in art have now been created (albeit many are stubs). Whew! It's been fun - and I appreciate all you've been doing in this category as well. Enjoy! Keithh (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Information about an External Link for Surrealism page

Hello Modernist.

I noticed that you've done some work on the Surrealism page. I just wanted to propose for the External Links on that page a site I created devoted to information about Surrealism.

Many years ago, I contributed to Wikipedia, but haven't lately. Rather than adding the link myself, I thought I'd introduce it to people who have been working on the Surrealism page to see if you feel it is appropriate. I welcome you to check it out and consider it as an external link for the Surrealism page. I feel it offers a great resource for anyone interested in learning about Surrealism.

Currently on the site, there is some promotion of a book of surrealist plays I wrote, which will be there for a few more months. I don't know if that is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. In any case, I welcome you to check it out and consider it as an external link.

I really appreciate your time, consideration and the work you put in at Wikipedia, which I find a very useful site. Thanks again.

bashkiewicz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.81.16 (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting site:[28] and I placed the link. Modernist (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dan Brown

Hi Modernist, I had written in the discussion about Dan Brown claiming to be a christian. If it was concerning his 'race' we could confirm it definitively; However, an ambiguous claim to 'religion' we have to call a 'claim'. Thanks for you time. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)