Talk:Women artists

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

. Latest Art. Autumn 2006 http://latest-art.co.uk/pdfs/2/003_LA002.pdf. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

I am still in the process of cutting and pasting in all my text, but i wanted to start putting elements of it up for everyone to edit. It would also be great if someone could fill in the Ancient and Byzantine parts of these entry as those are well beyond my area of expertise. Also, what about non-western art? I know that in parts of Africa women are responsible for creating textiles and in other parts of Africa women are responsible for painting the exteriors of buildings.--209.130.203.234 20:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is becoming quite long, does someone have a good method of separating it while retaining the goal of creating a comprehensive look at women artists.--209.130.203.234 20:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to proof this, but i am not a good proofer. Maybe someone else can try? --964267sr 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, i don't think this article is too long yet, but lets keep an eye on it. I could see it linking to a dedicated page about 20th century and 21st century Women Artists, as there are many more artists from this time period, and there is more known about those women.--964267sr 02:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Art

Currently "Women in Art" redirects here, so this page should definitely have information about the 20th/21st century as well. I added an expansion tag. - AKeen 18:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also mentioned that the 19th century could use some expansion. There were no Pre-Raphaelite women artists mentioned (that I recognised) apart from photographer Julia Margaret Cameron, so I've added a list of the better-known ones, and some relevant book references. Charivari 08:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stunning special on women's art in Latest Art a new British magazine edited naturally by women. Wimmin 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please somebody else profile the artists featured in the magazine above which Wikipedia has not got articles for. Wikipedia has one of the best files on women artists now. Wimmin 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more - the magazine gives out a link to this page! Does this mean we need to tell 'upstairs' that this page is the subject of 'live' media coverage? Link to Latest Art link to here Wimmin 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch Ruth Rix. Anon editor has removed her from category 'British artist' and replaced with 'Jewish artist'. Looks awfully like an attempt to downgrade Wimmin 15:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I typed 'Women in art' into the search box I expected an article discussing women as featured in art - in other words an article discussing phenomena such as bad girl art, good girl art, and others. I cannot also find any useful category for that, and it appears that the main category for the 'women artists' article is Category:Women in art. This is confusing: perhaps some renaming and disambig is needed?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, why is there no category at bottom of article linking to women's issues and politics? Wimmin 11:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no category 'women's issues and politics', but I added categories 'Feminism' and 'Gender studies', which I think pretty well covers it.MdArtLover 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit leery

about leaping in here, but, i discovered this sentence,

"In Art Deco Hildreth Meiere produced relational mosaics."

and am wondering about the use of the word "relational?" Any ideas? I am quite familiar with HM's work and . . . . . . . . ........ ? Carptrash 04:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a possible mistype of "repertory," which she is described as in her own article. I don't think "relational" really adds anything. - AKeen 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many images?

This article is getting a little image heavy. All these images running down each side of the screen are starting to look pretty cluttered and somewhat repetitive (3 by Artemisia Gentileschi). Maybe there could be a small thumbnail gallery at the bottom of each section and one main picture in each section - though I have a feeling that galleries would soon expand out of hand, as well. - AKeen 15:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Women's literature" as an area of study

(I am posting this message on the discussion pages of several likely articles and lists; sorry for the cross-posting):

I'd like to invite anyone interested in women's cultural production to read and comment on a draft article, " Women's literature in English." It began in response to the recent removal of " Woman Writers" as a category. It's close to being finished, but a few more eyes would be really helpful. Thanks! scribblingwoman 16:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Yesterday I submitted the category for review for reinstatement. The discussion is getting quite frothy. Okay, that's an understatement. (I cited this article, BTW, as a good example of work on women's cultural production). scribblingwoman 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhh...

"Women were often sexually harassed in artistic expressions that were not typically signed. This includes many forms of textile production, including weaving, embroidery, and lace-making"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.140.154 (talk • contribs)

Yeah that part didn't make sense at all, and I guess it just previously slipped by. I think it was meant that women were typically sequestered into these fields. I've updated the text - AKeen 21:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malvina Hoffman

should either be removed from the introduction to the 20th Century section, or the word "painters" should be changed to "artist," or "sculptors" should be added - something. I favor removing "Painters" and doing something else because there is a bias/misunderstanding among some folks that the words "artist" and "painter" are synonymous, and, as Sportin' Life says in Porgy and Bess, It Ain't Necessarily So. Carptrash 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction, suggestions

As it is, the introduction reads like an intro to an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Leading off with the Nochlin quote really isn't appropriate imo, as it is an intentionally provocative and skewed question that doesn't really introduce the subject properly. Perhaps this quote could be moved to the 20th century art section or something. Typically, the lead should summarize the article instead of introduce a question which is never mentioned again in the text. Also, this is a fairly large article to be without any inline cites. Perhaps the primary author(s) of the article could remedy this? Just a couple suggestions which would greatly improve this article imo. Wickethewok 19:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this whole article was likely someone's school essay. The intro as it stands is not very appropriate for an encyclopedia. I think we should remove it (except for the last paragraph, maybe) and just start out with the second section, "issues", which gives a better overview. - AKeen 14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to agree with this line of thought. The intro makes the whole article seem a bit POV. Paul Haymon 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article - the beginning at least - is not working on my monitor. Some wierd overlapping of elements. However I am reluctant to start moving stuff around. Meanwhile, what is happening here? Is it, as John and Yoko said, Just like starting all over? Carptrash 14:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the intro notice. I think the intro needs to be rewritten from scratch, as previously it was just a provocative quote. As for the rest of the article, a lot of it is still written in "report" still and needs a trim. Much of the content was pasted in, completely finished, a long time ago (see any edit in Nov of 2005). This article may indeed need a lot of rewriting. - AKeen 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-First Century

Twenty-First Century section started by being filled with publicity of artists of no particular notability. I believe that this is undesired and not respectful. 89.159.156.52 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 21st century is only eight years old. In order to distinguish it from the 20th century, one must highlight emerging artists. Mid-career artists cross over into the last century. The artists selected for this article have all won major awards and are recognized publicly for the caliber and ingenuity of their art. Please provide better examples of uniquely 21st century artists before deleting these. Campcloudrimwaldo (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All your edits [1] consist of inserting Becca Bernstein‎ in articles, so you do not seem a disinterested party in this discussion. Tyrenius (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently the section was reinstated. I reverted two artists who do not have bios on Wikipedia, but there are questions remaining regarding the 'selection' process. For instance, 3 of the 4 now mentioned hail from Portland, Oregon, which suggests an agenda. If several 21st century artists are to be mentioned, then the above point has merit: choose a handful who have unquestionable and international notability. That being said, I am not certain it is within the encyclopedia's purview to posit which hot things will stay hot, i.e., is the section even encyclopedic, or is it just an invitation for promotion? JNW (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bad approach generally, imho, leaving Emin, Whiteread etc as C20th artists. Better to have a section "contemporary artists" with an arbitary self-declared start point of artists who became notable from - say - 1980, or some such date. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a go at it, Johnbod. Cheers, JNW (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I've done a simple split & added a couple of lines. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are serious omissions here, Jenny Saville and Sarah Lucas for a start. Tomma Abts (Turner Prize winner 2006)... Tyrenius (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stick 'em in then Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Contemporary art section is a good addition to the article but is dominated by British artists (there is much more to contemporary art than the Turner prize) and artists who began working or gained prominence decades ago. This leaves the 21st century almost completely out. So why replace it with this section? Just add the new section to the 20th century or leave it and bring back a section on 21st century. The list of greatest women artists ever doesn't belong in the Contemporary art section at all (unless you find a list of greatest contemporary artists). I'll wait to hear your thoughts before making changes. Campcloudrimwaldo (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]