Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

Cubist Sculpture Article Lacking Critical Detail

Cubist Sculpture comes across as woefully naive, as it fails to make a single reference to Derain's "Crouching Figure." Sorry I don't have the time at the moment to fill in the details. I'll try to get back to it if no one beats me to the punch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skidoo (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maureen Paley restructuring

As of August 9-10, the article is getting a "major restructuring of the entire text to the express wishes of Maureen Paley." Have tried to express that the article is not intended as a comercial vehicle and should follow WP:NPOV and WP:MOS. Referenced material has been removed and Template:Young British Artists--although the gallery is widely accepted as significant in that context. The user Gallery history is an SPA. --Artiquities (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I did some basic copyediting and removed the promotional material. The editor in question has been warned and another editor posted at the COI notice board about the situation. freshacconci talktalk 11:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note anon IP edit, User:70.19.197.105. [1] Ty 15:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There is activity again at the Paley article, including what I would interpret as a vague legal threat. This is the same IP as before who is editing after I reverted changes by Gallery history. freshacconci talktalk 17:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a question, did I saw correctly the edit? Is it the removal of her own artwork from 1973? --Anneyh (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which (Wolfgang Tillmans)

The editor Gallery history has also been editing at Wolfgang Tillmans. His/her edits are actually rather minor there but that article is a mess. I will try tackling it but others may want to have a look as well. freshacconci talktalk 11:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

His/her recent edits may be minor, but see this. That aside, thank you freshacconci! -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"White on White" by Kazimir Malevich

"White on White," by Kazimir Malevich may need flipping — both vertically and horizontally.

Spelling inconsistencies too in both first and second names.

This is the Wiki image used at present at 3 articles.

I'm assuming that this image is correct. Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch Bus Stop, definitely needs flipping, I retitled it: Suprematist Composition: White on White...Modernist (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The MoMA link is correct. It's easy to miss as a thumbnail. Poor Kaz. freshacconci talktalk 13:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We need a newer correct version this commons version: File:Kazimir Malevich - 'Suprematist Composition- White on White', oil on canvas, 1918, Museum of Modern Art.jpg is oriented correctly but is way too dark and needs cropping...Modernist (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, can someone pop on over to MoMA with a camera...? freshacconci talktalk 13:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You can upload the picture off MoMA's website, drag it onto your desktop...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted to see some Wikipedian dragged away by over-zealous MoMA guards. freshacconci talktalk 13:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm painting an updated version right now — in 8 colors. Bus stop (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Now you're talkin'...Modernist (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Request Ileana Sonnabend

Hello..I'm new here...Can you guys create a Wiki page for Ileana Sonnabend she was the first wife of Leo Castelli, Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.236.75 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The current situation is that the page exists as a redirect to Castelli see here. Presuming she was/is WP:N the article on Sonnabend would continue on this page with the redirect removed. Start the article yourself perhaps. Why do you suggest it as a "request"? --Artiquities (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now started the article by reworking material from the Castelli article --Artiquities (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Just a note here: when material is used from another article, that needs to be recorded in the article where it is placed in the edit summary and/or the talk page to preserve copyright continuity. It is using copyright material, i.e. the copyright of the person(s) who wrote it in the first article. It is used under a free licence, which requires credit. I have done this for Ileana Sonnabend. Ty 21:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks, yes I should of thought of that.--Artiquities (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Good start so far - a lot of material can be added about her gallery in Paris; and her gallery in NYC as well as her relationship with Castelli and the NY artworld...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Input about Jacob Epstein

Concerning the lede at Jacob Epstein - American or British?...Modernist (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean which variation of English to use? He was born American but was knighted. A knighthood is pretty damn British. I say British spelling for this instance. freshacconci talktalk 03:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, do you mean should we consider him American or British? freshacconci talktalk 03:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bacon requested move

I have requested that Francis Bacon--the philosopher becomes Francis Bacon (philosopher) in order that Francis Bacon (artist) become more accessible. The discussion is here Talk:Francis Bacon#Requested_move --Artiquities (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is now a survey at Talk:Francis_Bacon#Survey. Ty 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

V. Ganapati Sthapati

It might be helpful if any interested editors here weighed in with their opinion on the article for the Indian sculptor and architect V. Ganapati Sthapati. He is apparently quite notable in India, but published third party sources in English seem hard to find. There is at the moment a slightly aggressive editor who has put a BLP template on the article. I have suggested an AfD to resolve the issue. Other opinions would be much appreciated. Talk page discussion is here. -- 173.52.134.182 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Leningradartist

Some people will have come across him before; he appears to be the author of a book on "Unknown Socialist Realism. The Leningrad School", and is now adding massive inappropriate blocks of images by modern "socialist realist" artists to several general articles: [2] These all seem to be from his book, and on his website, & I suspect they are for sale, although the website seems coy about this. They were all added to Commons by him under a OTRS licence: "I, Leningradartist, hereby publish this image under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license. I hereby claim that I am duly authorized to do so by virtue of the contract with the author of this image in accordance with Russian legislation." Hmmm. I have reverted some edits but not looked at them all. Also posting to COI noticeboard. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment here as well:[3]...Modernist (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits may cross the thin line between the contributions of an expert and conflict of interest. Yes, contributor appears to be loading articles with these images. JNW (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page; he also wrote the Wikipedia article about himself [4]. Of concern is the probability that he's an expert in his field-- which would be fine in theory, if he didn't appear to be promoting his publication and website and-- is using that knowledge to edit on the subject, unchecked, and give it a disproportionate place in other articles. JNW (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Guy Cobb‎

Long and largely unsourced article about a visual artist. I've tagged this for numerous concerns, most prominently that it's written by someone who apparently conducted a private interview with the subject and has included everything that ever happened to him. Anyone who wishes to have a look and perform the necessary surgery deserves a barnstar for meritorious service. JNW (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's a deal. Do it, and I'll give you a barnstar! Ty 01:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The only section that has valid cites is "Down in The Valley of Rural Violence and The Thorn Paintings', that from a local paper. Would you suggest deleting everything else, including the images, just leaving the intro, one section about his work, and the refs? JNW (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest:

1. Decide if he's notable. If not, then AfD. He seems on a quick glance to be notable, but you may have a better idea.
2. Remove all material that is not appropriate, regardless of referencing.
3. Rewrite appropriate material not appropriately written.
4. Ask the creator to provide inline citations (presumably using sources already stated in the References section).
5. Monitor accurate use of sources, using {{request quotation}} and other templates at Template:Citation needed.
6. If material is not substantiated after a reasonable opportunity has been given to do so, then it would be an OK procedure to begin deleting it.
7. Throughout, every assistance should be given to the (new) editor to apply Wiki policy: they have expressed a willingness to listen.
8. A fair but firm stance.
9. If there's an impasse, involve others. See WP:DR.
10. Images: deal with as you see appropriate per normal editing judgement. Maybe a gallery could accomodate some. If they're not properly licensed, point the editor in the right direction, and, if that fails, put the images up for deletion.
11. See you in a few weeks time, when you've finished tearing your beard out.
12. Good luck.

Ty 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Well said....I'm hoping to have more pressing matters that would require an equal amount of work, that is to say, several hours' worth. I think it passes the notability test. After that, it's a battle to balance guidelines and fairness. Thanks, JNW (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A month has passed, and it ain't worth a dozen barnstars.... JNW (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Soldner

The article on ceramic artist Paul Soldner could do with some attention by people who have some knowledge in the field. The article was tagged with both "notability" and "unreferenced" templates (the latter since May 2008) and the article was a right old mess. It's still not great. I've started a tidy up and added a couple of references but it seems to me that an artist of this calibre deserves a better article on Wikipedia. It's not my area of expertise. I came across it in the Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project current drive to clean up all the UBLPs in May 2008. I'm posting here in the hope that someone in this project might like to take an interest.--Plad2 (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Visual arts articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Visual arts articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Allora & Calzadilla

This artist duo have been selected to represent the USA in the 2011 Venice Biennale. I have been doing some edits on this page, usually trying to edit and format edits made by a very erratic editor Smarnett. Things have been getting more erratic recently, particularly when that editor decided to nominate the page for speedy and restart a completely new page Allora and Calzadilla, for which, that user got up to a level 4 warning.

I have tried to offer support and guidance to this editor but my advice is always ignored. Could anyone have a look? At my edits you see some semblance of an article at least. In particular Smarnett has a strange ownership behavior whereby any warning tag added to the article--even the basic "cleanup"--must always be removed on sight.--Artiquities (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Art bollocks

Any thoughts on this, esp. from our UK editors, since it's a term that fits within your vernacular? Problem one is that this is a whole lot of OR. Whether the term exists and is in general use is one question, but the way this article is written is unsourced OR. Problem two is, of course, is it actually being used enough to warrant an article? freshacconci talktalk 14:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess in the US we just say bullshit...Modernist (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Look like a complete load of old Jackson to me. The expression is barely if ever used. Certainly not common. Paul B (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - best as 2 lines in our non-existent article on the art market or art trade. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Very bitterly written fuckology. Ceoil (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as a negative, but then what do you call that technical art-sales language? "Artspeak (language)" perhaps, as there is an Artspeak. I am a long-time art collector, not a theorist. Please observe WP:CIV, even if you disagree with me. Please also allow that the article is brand new and I have plenty of other sources to add to it.Red Hurley (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How can we change this to Artspeak when it is a place in Canada? Any better suggestions?..Modernist (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple, it would be named Artspeak (language), just as I've done a page on Thomas Bartlett (historian) to aviod confusion - see Thomas Bartlett (disambiguation). Not that it is a language, but that it comes under the general heading of language and use of language. Can anyone deny that there are numerous examples? Can anyone think of a better name? If someone can argue coherently in its favour, please do so. I am not anti-AB, but the contrarians are making all the running.Red Hurley (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Artists have been Art Bollocks along with dealers for a long time. I refer to a section in abstract expressionism: “Art critics of the post-World War II era.” Many of the artists of lesser ability learned about self-promotion from their more talented or more successful predecessors. I am not sure that there can be a recipe to find quality. If dealers and/or art bollocks would not exist then they would have to be invented. Most collectors cannot easily see the difference between art bollocks or experts. Experts also have their bias and limitations. The article may be more confusing then useful. (Salmon1 (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC))

I like it. There should be an addressing of the dividing line between saying something about art and exuding hot air. I would definitely not delete it. It is an important topic. Bus stop (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; it has now been listed at - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art bollocks, and perhaps you would consider adding your names in support of keeping the article.Red Hurley (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think renaming it to Artspeak would be doable. The existing article can be renamed Artspeak (gallery) simply enough. Although it was first here on wiki Artspeak the gallery was not first to use the term and obviously was named for the idea of artspeak. We can be bold on this one. A substantial rewrite would be in order to broaden the scope of this article from one of mockery to dealing with the specialized language used within the art world. freshacconci talktalk 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with freshacconci. A serious rewrite is needed though to broaden its scope. Ceoil (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What "specialized language used within the art world"? Is there a source on "specialized language used within the art world"? Bus stop (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Really it is a sales language, but to those outside the art world who come across it and are mystified by it, "specialised language" fits the bill. Please suggest any improvement on that.Red Hurley (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any "specialized language" associated with talking about art. Can you give an example? Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Leningradartist

Any opinions about this editor drowning wikipedia in obscure Russian artists? This article is his latest target List of 20th century women artists...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; we've been hereabouts before. It's what happens when someone has an agenda, however well-intentioned, and creates undue emphasis in that direction. It's difficult to manage, but as discussed before here and elsewhere, if any of these edits or new articles rely largely-- or solely-- upon self-referenced publications whose authority has not been established by objective sources, the edits/articles are open to review. In this case, we're looking at a lot of edits. JNW (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting James Brooks requesting the deletion from the article, Lyrical abstraction

• Background

from Talk:Lyrical_Abstraction Citations for James Brooks:

”Since James Brooks clearly states that: "his whole tendency has been away from.... lyrical" therefore there is no reason to list him as a Lyrical Abstractionist painter.(Salmon1 (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

I disagree with that interpretation. Actually Brooks states above "I think my whole tendency has been away from a fast-moving line either violent or lyrical into something that is slower and denser of more wandering and unknowing.” Given the proximity to Jackson Pollock - his neighbor on Long Island the emphasis on line becomes more apparent as Brooks used areas and not lines in his paintings. The text that follows in the book says: "By 1948 Brooks' interest in synthetic cubism had evolved into a lyrical abstraction of stains, drips, and interpenetrating platelets of color." Clearly defining his work as lyrical abstraction...Modernist (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be clear enough that his work was, at least at a certain point, lyrical abstraction, so validating inclusion. Ty 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)”

• Proof for deletion James Brooks from Lyrical abstraction

James Brooks statement in 1965: My whole tendency has been away from the fast moving line either violent or lyrical.. James Brooks' testimony in 1965 with the introduction by Ann Temkin Chief Curator, MOMA is added to the External links of the article, Lyrical abstraction. Wikipedia demands reliable sources as reference. The artist, James Brooks’ own testimony from 1965 proofs that he does not belong to the list:

"This is a list of artists, whose work or a period or significant aspects of it, has been seen as lyrical abstraction, including those before the identification of the term or tendency in America in the 1960s." (Salmon1 (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC))

Brooks is rightfully included in the article because of these 3 references one of which includes the quote which is on the sound bite that contains his comment about his line: The sound bite is accompanied by this text by Magda Salvesen and Diane Cousineau: By 1948 Brook's interest in synthetic cubism had evolved into a lyrical abstraction of stains, drips, and interpenetrating platelets of color. ...Modernist (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

References pertaining to James Brooks

Please Modernist sign your name when you respond. James Brooks' own testimony especially when it is provided by the MOMA is a highly reliable source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and depends only on highly reliable sources.

• Provided references by Modernist

NY Times obituary retrieved May 24, 2010

The obituary has no mention of the name of the individual responsible for the article. It cannot be taken seriously.

This is a substantial obituary by an important source. On the contrary it is to be taken seriously - to find the author - you can ask the New York Times for that information...Modernist (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Honolulu Academy of Art retrieved May 24, 2010

The title of the Exhibition: Decades of Abstraction: 
From the collection of the Honolulu Academy of Arts. James Brooks is mentioned among the artists represented in the exhibition and was not mentioned in relation to Lyrical abstraction.

While that information is not specified it is open to interpretation which of the included artists were being referred to as Lyrical Abstractionists - Brooks's work however fits well within the description in the piece...Modernist (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=m4WP-3ppltgC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=james+brooks+and+lyrical+abstraction&source=bl&ots=jh-EEyOVJd&sig=o0jaVAaD0-QmLKHUMntPBBL-TiI&hl=en&ei=Kqb-S6eNAoKBlAfGgJHJCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=james%20brooks%20and%20lyrical%20abstraction&f=false Artists' estates: reputations in trust]

By Magda Salvesen, Diane Cousineau, p.69 Google books, retrieved May 27, 2010

Magda Salvesen is the widow of Jon Schueler has been writing art books primarily to promote the heritage of her late husband. Diane Cousineau [5] seems to be working in the field of promoting Artists’ Estates in Trust along with Magda Salvesen.

I refuse to cast aspersions on the authors and I respect their work, and in no way does it appear to cast aspersions on James Brooks...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The acceptance of the reference provided by the MOMA [6] James Brooks' testimony in 1965 with the introduction by Ann Temkin Chief Curator, MOMA seems to be the only action consistent with the pursuit of highly reliable sources. Therefore it is appropriate to delete James Brooks’ name from the article Lyrical abstraction list:

"This is a list of artists, whose work or a period or significant aspects of it, has been seen as lyrical abstraction, including those before the identification of the term or tendency in America in the 1960s." (Salmon1 (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC))

I don't find any of the online refs given here conclusive on the matter either way. If it is true that "The text that follows in the book says: "By 1948 Brooks' interest in synthetic cubism had evolved into a lyrical abstraction of stains, drips, and interpenetrating platelets of color." then he should stay, absent strong evidence the other way. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, though not conclusive, this entry doesn't do anything to dispel the designation [7]. JNW (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is important to realize that all the comments dismiss the well-established artist James Brooks’ statement about his own art. By his own words James Brooks stated in 1965:

”I think my whole tendency has been away from the fast moving line either violent or lyrical that is slower and denser or more wondering and unknowing.”

Johnbod references : http://books.google.com/books?id=m4WP-3ppltgC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=james+brooks+and+lyrical+abstraction&source=bl&ots=jh-EEyOVJd&sig=o0jaVAaD0-QmLKHUMntPBBL-TiI&hl=en&ei=Kqb-S6eNAoKBlAfGgJHJCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=james%20brooks%20and%20lyrical%20abstraction&f=false Artists' estates: reputations in trust]

"By 1948 Brooks' interest in synthetic cubism had evolved into a lyrical abstraction of stains, drips, and interpenetrating platelets of color." then he should stay, absent strong evidence the other way.

This statement was the opinion of Magda Salvesen whose interest is to establish "Artists' estates: reputation in trust" She is the widow of the artist Jon Schueler and has been writing art books primarily to promote the heritage of her late husband. Diane Cousineau [8] seems to be working in the field of promoting Artists’ Estates in Trust along with Magda Salvesen. Magda Salvesen and Diane Cousineau provide an interpretation. The question is, why would the poor sources of references satisfy some Wikipedia editors against the artists’ own words? I would like to reference a video [9] including the comments of James Brooks and narrated by his wife the artist, Charlotte Park. No place in the whole video can one find reference to lyrical abstraction. The question still remains why not delete an artist's name from a list that otherwise may compromise the relevance of the list? Editors in Wikipedia are required to rely on reliable references. I hope that the few editors involved in this rather simple error can come together and make the necessary correction. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

Why are you impugning the integrity and credibility of authors Salvesen and Cousineau because you disagree with a descriptive phrase they include - which others actually concur is an apt description. Gerald Nordland calls it an engrossing and valuable book, and other reviews by people like Flora Biddle are very favorable: [10]Most people write books with a wide variety of personal and professional motivations, it is the accuracy of the material that we are concerned with not the authors reasons for creating a book. If we were to listen to Mark Rothko's own words - he should not be included in the current MoMA Ab Ex show. Rothko didn't want to be called an abstract expressionist, and he didn't want to be called an abstract painter either; however the vast majority of art world people seem to concur with Rothko being an Abstract expressionist...Modernist (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Having watched the above tape in its entirety - I note first that his work after 1947 looks like Lyrical Abstraction and while he or his wife never mentions that label - (artists never like labels) neither do they mention Abstract Expressionism. Certainly whoever made this tape does; and there is a brief mention of abstract expressionism when briefly describing the 9th street show. Actually Charlotte calls the work - abstract. No one doubts that James Brooks was an abstract painter. What I find particularly interesting to hear is reference to stain painting. His 1948-1949 stain paintings pre-date Pollocks 1951 stain paintings and clearly Brooks pre-dates Helen Frankenthaler's stain paintings of 1952. In fact Frankenthaler credits Pollock with influencing her use of the stain technique and in his Lyrical Abstractions of 1949 James Brooks is clearly seen in his studio with Jackson Pollock. I think the tape confirms Brooks was a Lyrical Abstraction painter. Although his concept of using a line was worded differently....Modernist (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have little new to add, but it did occur to me, as well, that an artist's self-assessment, while interesting, is irrelevant (believe me, I hate to admit that for selfish reasons). Hassam insisted that he wasn't influenced by Monet, and most painters, I suspect, believe their intent is misunderstood. I fail to see an injustice or controversy in the lyrical expressionism designation. The push to reverse this, with personal claims made about art historians, doesn't sit well. JNW (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

James Brooks will always be known as a great American abstract expressionist. Wiki:NPOV and Objectivity are being undermined by some editorial zealousness. Frequently artists are described by critics as followers. Art Criticism, Press Coverage & Art of the 1950s-Abstract Expressionism 1950s Part 2 Therefore it is incumbent upon them to point to successful colleagues. Other painters are called imitators and those are the dangerous ones. The only way for them to exist is by being combative. The true professional artists are always able to follow their inner inspiration. (Salmon1 (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

The tone is one of veiled accusation, and doesn't belong here. Whistler and Sickert were both inherently combative... and have been classified variously as tonalists, realists, or impressionists; none of these appellations are completely satisfying, yet they are not without some basis in fact. At the end of the day the controversy appears both somewhat esoteric and way personal. JNW (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiki:NPOV and Objectivity are being undermined by editorial zealousness. This does not benefit the article, Lyrical abstraction. (Salmon1 (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

In a similar vein, your edit history reveals links from numerous articles about abstract expressionist subjects to a single Youtube video, and references also to an apparently related publication. Without questioning the value of these links and references, they may raise questions about objectivity, conflict of interest, and self-referencing. JNW (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The videos that you are referring to are in the archives of the Smithsonian Institution and in a number of libraries around the Country. They represent a series of gatherings conducted by art historians with surviving members and family of the era of the 1950s. (Salmon1 (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

This video you linked to on YouTube appears to be a copyright violation and, if so, links to it should be removed. There is no evidence that copyright clearance has been obtained for the YouTube upload. Ty 08:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Help desk query

There's a question on the help desk today about establishing the notability of a 19th century painter. Could one of you specialists assist? -- John of Reading (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell he was a 20th century American landscape painter (1919-2005), born in Texas and who lived in NYC, Maine and Florida [11], not unknown but not very notable...Modernist (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)