I am nominating this for featured article because following successful WP:GAC and WP:PR discussions as well as some further literature research, I feel this may be ready. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Spotchecks not carried out
Refs 11, 15 and 16 all seem to be from the same source; why is the short citation form not used?
They use the short format with the Chapter. Do you want me to remove the chapter? They also included the source quote, which I have removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
These same Fineberg citations all refer to "The Landscape of Signs: American Pop Art 1960 to 1965", which is not the title of the Fineberg book listed in the references. Perhaps it is a chapter or a section of the book? Whatever the reason, the link between citation and reference source has to be clear and unambiguous.
Little Golden Book series ... Donald Duck Lost and Found ... Carl Buettner ... Disney Enterprises ... Bob Grant and Bob Totten - Are any of these worth linking? Redlinks aren't a problem if they're notable. "Little Golden Book series", at the very least, could be explained.
"Lichtenstein employed color without co-mingling different colors in the same area, which surrendered the economical advantage of the Ben-Day dots that can accommodate the economical production of a variety of colors of the spectrum." I don't know visual arts, but this is not clear to me.
Basically Lichtenstein would not create a green appearance by placing blue and yellow dots near each other. He would just buy green paint and make green dots. I have revised the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
"One interpretation of Lichtenstein's use of red in the face is that it gives Mickey the appearance that" You haven't mentioned the red in the face yet.
The source presents a half a paragraph of text leading up to this point. Do you want me to provide a source quote. I cannot clarify much further myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is the discussion of the blushing in the description, rather than the analysis and interpretation? Frankly, a lot of the description section probably should be shifted- the last paragraph especially.
"During autumn 1961, a fellow teacher at Rutgers University named Allan Kaprow made introductions between Lichtenstein and Leo Castelli Gallery director Ivan Karp. Lichtenstein showed Karp several paintings, but not Look Mickey. He instead impressed him with Girl with Ball, and Karp decided to represent Lichtenstein a few weeks later." So what?
"This is also a prominent example of Lichtenstein's theme relating to vision." Why is this in the article?
What do you mean? Lichtenstein is known for subjects looking at/through peepholes, periscopes, reflections, etc. It belongs in this article just like it does in any painting related to his vision theme. I have tried to beef up the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
You've already said that in the article, just a couple of lines before where you say this. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
"He uses the narrative to emphasize this theme, while presenting several visual elements relating to the theme. Walt Disney said about Donald Duck: "He's got a big mouth, a big belligerent eye, a twistable neck and a substantial backside that's highly flexible. The duck comes near being the animator's ideal subject." Lichtenstein's painting expressed a lot using on these physical features." This needs rewriting.
"When Lichtenstein had his first solo show at The Leo Castelli Gallery in February 1962, it sold out before opening. This was one of the paintings that was shown in Lichtenstein's first show." Could these sentences be merged?
"The painting was bequeathed to the National Gallery of Art following Lichtenstein's 1997 death as a result of a promise made in 1990 in honor of the 50th Anniversary of the National Gallery of Art." And where is it today? On display there?
"lso considered reflexive, in the sense that the artist is painting something through which the viewer may see elements of the artist." I've not heard that term before- do we have an article on the concept?
The narrative (speech balloon) is something to point out. The word "Look", which is even part of the title of the work emphasizes this theme.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd feel more comfortable if someone familiar with visual arts were to take a look at the article- have you tried notifying the wikiproject? I've always found them to be very good. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Comments: I really like this article; it's very readable, on an interesting subject. I think it is just about there, but the prose needs a little bit of a tidy; repetition and redundancy are the main, albeit minor, problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"There is an alternate theory that Look Mickey and Popeye were enlargements of bubble gum wrappers according to some sources.": Clumsy. Do the sources say that there is a theory? Or is this just restating the same idea twice? Perhaps just "An alternate theory suggests that Look Mickey and Popeye were enlargements of bubble gum wrappers". And who holds this theory? (I don't think "some sources" is precise enough)
"Allan Kaprow relayed a story that he once stated in reference to a Bazooka Double Bubble Gum wrapper to Lichtenstein": I'm afraid this loses me: he's telling us that he once told a story about something else? And is this the wrapper mentioned earlier?
"His early comic subjects are said to be a "loose and improvised style clearly derived from de Kooning," in his Women.": Assuming Women to be works by de Kooning, it jars a little when the work is outside the quotation and the artist is inside.
Are you saying you want the whole thing dequoted? The full quotes that this sentence is sourced from are as follows
"In 1956 Lichtenstein had produced a small lithograph, Ten Dollar Bill, in a jovial, cartoon-like style, and in 1958, partly to entertain his two sons (then aged two and four), he had made ink drawings of comic-strip characters such as Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Bugs Bunny in a loose and improvised style clearly derived from de Kooning. Yet in spite of these precedents in his own work, the change in both method and sensibility implicit in the 1961 paintings Popeye and Look Mickey, both of which were gross enlargements of images printed on bubble-gum wrappers, was so striking as to announce his new Pop style at a single stroke."
"During 1960 Lichtenstein painted an abstract expressionist picture with Mickey Mouse in it, related stylistically to the de Kooning "Women.""
Looking at the quotes, I think there is a slight danger of conflating two sources. I'd either cut the rest of the sentence after "de Kooning" and leave out the part about "Women", or replace the whole quote with the second quote which explicitly mentions "Women". And I think either quote requires in-text attribution to make clear who said it (i.e. Livingstone/Fineburg wrote...). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"causing Warhol to turn to create the Campbell's Soup Cans series. Warhol relegated himself to soup cans as a subject at the time to avoid competing with the more finished style of comics by Lichtenstein."
"Thus, Lichtenstein's foray into comics led to the abandonment of the topic by Warhol. Although Lichtenstein would continue to work with comic sources, after 1961 he abandoned…": Abandonment … abandoned.
"During autumn 1961, a fellow teacher at Rutgers University named Allan Kaprow made introductions between Lichtenstein and Leo Castelli Gallery director Ivan Karp": Rather convoluted. Why not just "During autumn 1961 [WP:SEASON?], Allan Kaprow, a fellow teacher at Rutgers University, introduced Lichenstein to Ivan Karp, the director of the Leo Castelli Gallery".
Not actually what I meant; there was an "of" missing, but I fixed it myself. Feel free to take "fishing" back out. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"Walt Disney said about Donald Duck: "He's got a big mouth, a big belligerent eye, a twistable neck and a substantial backside that's highly flexible. The duck comes near being the animator's ideal subject."": Not a major point, but was Disney referring to the painting here? Or is it just to make the point that Lichenstein captured these features? (Incidentally, what was Disney's view of someone effectively using his characters? Were there any problems?)
I don't believe Disney was commenting about this painting and am unsure of his opinions about any of Lichtenstein's works. He was referring to Disney Studios animators in this instance, not Lichtenstein.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, just checking. It reads that way, I just wanted to be sure. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"This was one of the paintings that was shown at Lichtenstein's first solo show…"
"This was one of the paintings that was shown at Lichtenstein's first solo show at The Leo Castelli Gallery in February 1962 that it sold out before opening": I think there's something wrong here. "That is sold out" does not appear to make sense unless I'm missing something.
Although no art expert, the one thing which I think is missing content-wise is some sort of critical reception. Was this well received or dismissed? If there is nothing major on this particular piece, could something be added in terms of reaction to this style of painting from comics? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Comments - reading through now. Will jot queries below. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Some descriptor of who/what Alice Goldfarb Marquis would help alot with context -is she an art critic?
I have added art historian and art dealer in front of the first appearance of their respective names. However, I am not so sure that Karp really needs this clarification because his title follows his name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Lichtenstein made several transformations to the original work:- hmmm, maybe "Lichtenstein made several major changes to the original work:"? "transformations" just sounds really odd to my ears used in this way.....
Typically, Ben-Day dots facilitate the economical production of a variety of colors of the spectrum as dots of a few different colors can be placed proximally to render the appearance of a third color economically.- actually I am not even sure what this sentence is trying to say...and a few words are repeated.
Otherwise looking good. The analysis in the last section is a hoot. Agree with Sarastro1 that some more reception would be good, but if you can't find it then you can't find it. Engaging read. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
In terms of reception, the first and last sentences in this section are sort of reception-like, but are not enough to warrant a separate section. Most of this content comes from the library. I will see what I can do in terms of putting a section together for reception.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
No no, I don't necessarily mean rearrange, but just any more material about why other people thought it was important or influential is all. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This final section now contains elements of critical commentary, but it is more analysis. Should I rename the section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Support: With the responses to my comments, and to those of Casliber above, I think this now meets the criteria. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Pleased to see this here, working through but leaning support from first read. Ceoil (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Representative of Lichtenstein's first non-expressionist work, Look Mickey also marked his initial foray into Ben-Day dots – used to give an "industrial" half-tone effect – and his first use of a speech balloon. It was also the first time he used comics as subject matter.. "is representative of" - or is his first. Also the word "first" is used 4 times here. "foray" isnt a good word in this context, "employed" or something would be better.
It seems that a lot of this has been corrected. I changed "foray into" to "employment of". Most of the uses of first are for parallel structure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
yes, much better now. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
a variety of colors of the spectrum - remove 'of the spectrum'.
Lichtenstein employed color without co-mingling different colors in the same area, which surrendered the economical advantage of the Ben-Day dots. co-mingling? surrendered? This sentence needs to be clarified, seems unclear. Ceoil (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
More generally, your using the past tence through out, eg "Lichtenstein's painting expressed a lot using these physical features". Not sure thats most appropriate here. Ceoil (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
towering over Lichtenstein and laughing at his retrograde efforts - should this be in quotes?
Here is the quote: "Mickey, a figure of self-control, represents the 'art historical superego looming over Lichtenstein at the moment of Look Mickey's creation,' namely, the vanguard modernist (a paintlike white spill under his left foot recalls Jackson Pollock's pours) who can only laugh at the exertions of the retrograde realist. The painting pits Donald's 'thwarted object attachments and slapstick textual exuberance' against Mickey's 'position of epistemological and symbolic authority.'"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
'a prominent example of the theme of vision. He uses the narrative to emphasize this theme, while presenting several visual elements relating to the theme - theme x 3.
'The painting is one of of Lichtenstein's first non-expressionist works, and marks his initial employment of Ben-Day dots – used to give an "industrial" half-tone effect. The painting sees his first use of both a speech balloon comics as subject matter. The - this is the opening lines for the "description" section, but is prob more suited to "analysis".
I have been unsuccessful at parsing a separate analysis section out of the "Interpretation" section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, its a difficult one. I'll make a try, but revert if not happy. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd place the "Legacy" section after "Interpretation". Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
"Look Mickey, is considered a small step from his earlier comic strip pop art" - This could be read two ways, and is hard to parse. Do you want to quote what the source actually says here, and we can try and rephrase. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is the text "...there is a persistent compulsion to distinguish between "Pop" and "post-Pop" work, in effect, to proclaiim early favorites more classically "Pop.: This is, in fact, a wholly spurious—one might even hazard market-driven—divide that fails to recognize the centrality of the artist's tenatious conceptual regularity. Even Lichtenstein's work before 1961 occupies a place on the continuum. For over ten years he had been exhibiting paintings that played with unfashionable derivations of such scenarios as medieval jousting and American folklore (see cats. 62, 128, 129); thus engaged with the Outre, it was not a big leap to the "first" Pop experiments (see cats. 130, 131), and then to Look Mickey (1961: cat. 8).".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
From the lead, "The painting marks Lichtenstein's first use of painterly techniques to depict the process of mechanical reproduction of visual imagery", but later we read that he was utilising comic strips from 1958. A distinction is needed.
Note that 1958 is drawings. "Painterly" techniques are not employed in drawing. Someone above mentioned above. Text has been added to make it clear this is comics used as s source for paintings.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I didnt pick up on that. Might make a bit more explicit. Ceoil (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The self reflection / self reverential aspect of the painting is touched on in a few places, but not really developed satsfactioraly, in my view. I found it confusing reading through, and am not sure the inclusion of a reproduction of Caravaggio's Narcissus is justified by the supporting text. Again, can see where you are coming from, but it needs to be developed.
In terms of the reproduction use, note that this is not a WP:NFCC fair use case. This image is PD. The threshold is much lower for inclusion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Its not clear while reading through that the para opening with "Donald is an explicitly divided subject" is a quote. Maybe a different template.
The lead unsatisfactory and brief given the extent of the body of the article. This should be easy to resolve, there is plenty in the article body that could be briefly summarised.Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I dont see any mention of saturated colours or farce. Again, should be easy to resolve, this is a seminal work. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Note I am leaning oppose at this stage, having gone though a very heavy copyedit in the last 12 hours;, the signifance of the painting in the time line of the last 50 years is not brought through, and I see other major gaps, though I still think they can be bridged, if the nominator has access to appropriate sources. I am very much willing to help, there are content gaps yet that need to be filled. Also Tony, I mentioned examples below of infractions of art speak that I was unable to parse and fix, can I list here and work through. Pls dont take this as a refutal, you have a very strong article, I just think it still needs a push re comprehensiveness.Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not a work that gets expounded upon in post modern art books. What kind of significance are you looking for? This is not like my other WP:WPVA painting FA (Campbell's Soup Cans). Not sure what you are expecting. Believe me, I have dug through the art books for this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Tony, did a bit of digging mid week, and was unable to come up with anything not already included (google books only though). I'll conceed that one. I'll take another quick look tonight re prose, but thats something I can take care of myself from here, having read the article several times now, I know what is left to be done (incl some bits of re-org). So I'm a Support. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
CommentSupport. The paragraph on Graham Bader's interpretation (in the middle of the analysis section) is basically the same sentence repeated 3 times, and then again at the beginning of the subsequent quotation. Please make this less redundant and more concise. Kaldari (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed one of the redundant sentences and reworded the other. It's still a bit repetitive, but not as bad as it was. I also removed the throw-away comment that the work is "the very engine of its narrative", as this adds nothing to the analysis. Hope you'll agree it's an improvement. Otherwise, the rest of the article seems pretty solid. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I am just seeing your edits and am not so sure why you did them. I have reverted because I am not sure what you mean. What is your interpretation of the phrase "engine of the narrative"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I can see where Kaldari is coming from, though I agree with your reversion. I've tried to draw out the the idea somewhat, but am not really happy with this one yet. There are a few instances where the alayisis become vague, which is hardly surprising given that we are talking about pop art, or 1960s art in general. My impression is that you've done really well in avoiding art speak in intrepating the sources, but there are a few tweaks left still. If I list them out here, and there are really only a few, can we go through them one by one. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
After I looked more closely, I think his edit is mostly good. However, this is the engine of the narrative. Look Mickey means Look at what I am looking at. Meanwhile, Mickey is looking at the whole spectacle of him not seeing what he should be feeling. I think the other part of the edit is good. But this content describes the meat of the presentation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I was misreading the "engine" bit. The problem is that when it says "Graham Bader, describing it", I thought 'it' referred to the painting itself, not the juxtaposition (in which case, it would be a pointless statement). My bad. It is confusing though that the two its in the sentence refer to different things. Kaldari (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I reworded the engine bit so that the grammar isn't confusing. Hope that helps. Sorry for my misunderstanding of it earlier. Kaldari (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)