Talk:Yellow and Green Brushstrokes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Comics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

merge suggestion[edit]

The discussion has been centralized at Talk:Brushstrokes series#Merger discussion. Post all comments on the proposed merger there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is part of Brushstroke series, along with Brushstrokes, Little Big Painting and Yellow and Green Brushstrokes. They all use the same non-free image File:Brushstrokes source.jpg. Merging the individual works into the series would remove the need for repetition of the non-free image use, as well as remove the need for repetitious explanation, since they are all part of the same series. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

excess quotes from the work of others[edit]

As in Golf Ball, Girl with Ball Whaam! and Yellow and Green Brushstrokes this article quotes excessively from the works of others, including Waldman, Diane (1993) in the footnotes. From Waldman:

  • "Lichtenstein's ability to convey the illusion of movement while containing his forms within the picture plane is particularly striking in Yellow and Green Brushstrokes, for example, where the activity of the brushstrokes is depicted much the way he had shown explosive action in some of his earlier large-scale paintings, such as Whaam! (fig. 90), 1963, and As I Opened Fire (fig. 91), 1964."
  • "Other works in this series, such as Little Big Painting concentrate even more strongly on the physical quality of the brushstroke. The extreme magnification of the brushstroke, similar to the close-up imagery of the comic strip paintings, gives it added impact. The powerful thrust of the brushstroke is reinforced by its compact form. As a result, this painting more nearly approaches the kind of glorious brushstroke of the most significant gestural painters among the Abstract Expressionists. Little Big Painting is one of several paintings—of which other examples are the large canvas of the same year, Big Painting No. 6 (fig. 130), and the aforementioned Yellow and Green Brushstrokes— in which Lichtenstein uses overlapping forms rather than centering one form or placing two side by side."
  • "This arrangement of dense, impacted forms creates the illusion of active shapes in a shallow space; but because they lack any sense of relief or depth and have been reduced to flat colors and a single bold outline, without any subtle contrasts between light and shade, they read as flat forms on a flat plane."
  • "In Big Painting No. 6 and Yellow and Green Brushstrokes, Lichtenstein dramatically enlarged the size of the canvas and increased the dynamic activity that was so much a part of Little Big Painting."
  • "In all four, Lichtenstein is once again the virtuoso painter, a luxury that he does not often allow himself (which he had earlier, on a grander scale, with Yellow and Green Brushstrokes [fig. 129], 1966), usually holding bravura technique in check with his sense of irony and detachment."

There are other long quotes in the footnotes also. Considering the shortness of the article, there is more information in the quotes in the footnotes than the article itself. The editor of this article should have taken more time to integrate the information in the footnotes into the article, using his own words. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)