Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts:

Deletion review: Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo[edit]


I have submitted a request to have the article's deletion overturned. I invite editors to review Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo, then share their thoughts at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 22. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for reassessment: A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte[edit]

I request a reassessment of A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte; I think that in the years since its last assessment it's gotten past Start-class. Sumana Harihareswara 17:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Undoubtedly above Start-class. I have promoted it to C, but it may even be B. Also raised to mid-importance - it is a landmark in the history of art and may even be "high". Other opinions requested. Pelarmian (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't do importance for VA. I thought it C but no higher, given the importance of the work. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pelarmian: Thank you! Sumana Harihareswara 15:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Packed galleries[edit]

An editor has told me that the "packed" image gallery mode should not be used on Wikiproject:Visual Arts pages? I can't seem to find the discussion about this, could someone please explain why—I can't really imagine what the reason for this could be. Seraphim System (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason is they ram images together without giving them space to breathe, and don't allow them to be seen properly. No doubt someone will remember where the lengthy discussion was - it was taken off to a sub-page of some French 19th-century subject, as I remember. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds entirely subjective, personally I think the image borders are really ugly. Is there really some longstanding community consensus on this? I would like an answer from someone other then the editor who is edit warring over this on the Longquan Celadon article. Seraphim System (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I agree the standard looks better for that particular gallery and it's one of the few exceptions I've seen. The issue is it looks bad on the Longquan Celadon article. Also, you said it was a WP:VA guideline, you did not mention that it was an RfC about a specific gallery for an entirely unrelated article. I guess we can have our own RfC. I just didn't want to waste community time if there actually was some kind of long-established overwhelming consensus. Seraphim System (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Start another rfc if you like, but please don't edit-war over it. The Rfc was clearly intended to apply to other art articles. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like it was closed no consensus despite many votes to switch to packed mode. Seraphim System (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
It was closed in the usual way by no less a figure than User:Slim Virgin, with a longish closing note ending "....but for now consensus to change to packed mode has not been established." Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Nancy Crow[edit]

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Nancy Crow? Almost all of the sources cited are WP:BLPSELFPUB so it's not clear whether Crow meets WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST; moreover, the article is a bit promotional sounding, particularly the box quote at the beginning, and makes mention of a number of non-Wikipedia notable collections and exhibitions. Quilting might not get the type of coverage of some other fine arts, so I'd figured it would be best to get feedback from others before adding tags, etc. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am more concerned with sourcing than notability. She would probably meet WP:ARTIST if sources were added to confirm that her works are in the permanent collections of the American Folk Art Museum and the American Craft Museum (now the Museum of Arts and Design) (The person's work (or works) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.) I rapidly found the following good sources:
Verbcatcher (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for checking on this Verbcatcher. I only mentioned "notability" because pretty much all of the sources are Crow's books. This may be fine for referencing certain content, but it doesn't help establishing notability. Anyway, I'm glad I asked about the article at some WikiProjects for feedback since it seems some others have started helping to improve the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Bernard Moore (potter)[edit]

This important British art potter needs an entry. Pelarmian (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. There are 22 of his works in the Victoria and Albert Museum and six in the British Museum. Please create an article, here are a few sources to get you started:
Verbcatcher (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Started Bernard Moore (potter), but still a stub. Pelarmian (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Rush Condon[edit]

Please take a look at Samuel Rush Condon. I am concerned about notability (WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST), and whether the article is over-promotional. There have been several edits by User:Samuelrushcondon, about which I have added a note at User talk:Samuelrushcondon. There is a related discussion at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Artworks by modern day painter being self uploaded as CC. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That article is very promotional, which is not surprising as it's difficult to write about an artist of questionable notability without padding it a bit with fluffery. He's twice been a finalist for the Archibald Prize which that article tells us is a major portraiture prize in Australia (any Aussies out there?). But as he's a finalist that may be insufficient. Otherwise, the article probably doesn't pass WP:GNG; with a major clean up of promotional language, we may not be left with much and the sources are minimal at best. freshacconci (✉) 03:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the Archibald Prize is highly significant in the art scene and the subject of popular media coverage every year here. The talk/buzz is typically centred around the individuals (typically celebrities) who are depicted in the portraits, less the artists, and once the winner is announced, the media buzz typically focuses on them until it dies down. In 2015 the most recent year Condon appeared as a finalist, there were 46 other finalists as well: List of Archibald Prize 2015 finalists. From a handful of the blue-linked individual artists on that list that I looked at (most have no articles), most had work in permanent collections or some other significance in their public life. That is something that Condon appears to lack, work in permanent collections or significant exhibitions, and WP:ARTIST suggests that is one way in which notability is established. seb26 (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I nominated this for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Rush Condon. Any comments appreciated. seb26 (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Visual technology, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Legitimate edits were rejected/deleted on BIOART page - Request for Assessment - or am I doing something wrong?[edit]

Hi Im new to Wikipedia. I joined to try to add information to the BioArt page

The article states "Although BioArtists work with living matter, there is some debate as to the stages at which matter can be considered to be alive or living. Creating living beings and practicing in the life sciences brings about ethical, social, and aesthetic inquiry. "

I added an example: " Consider "Regenerative Reliquary", 2016 by Amy Karle, a sculpture consisting of 3D printed scaffolds for human stem cell growth into bone installed in a bioreactor[2]. The cells and genetic material come from a live human donor, are expanded in a lab, grow into tissue and mineralize into bone along that scaffold. The cells continue to live on separately from the body they came from, and may continue to live on after that person dies, raising interesting questions about what is considered to be "life" and "alive"."

I linked to "Regenerative Reliquary" and cited a source from PopSci. There are other sources I can cite as well. I added a picture.

I also added Amy Karle's name under BioArt practicioner. She is a popular emerging artist in the field and has been widely recogonized as an artist working within in the scientific, medical and technological community. She shows regularily alongside other artists mentioned in the article.

I am wondering why this is being rejected? Am I doing something wrong? Please advise.

Best, Laughing Albartross --LaughingAlbatross (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

ps apologies if this is not the corect way to post this request! I posted in talk and was invited to teahouse, still not sure how to post subjects here. THANK YOU!


Bringing Bones to Life

3DHeals “3DHEALS Influencer Interview Series: Amy Karle” 22 March 2017

Dutch Daily de Volkskrant “Een hand die in een pot groeit, en het is kunst” 18 March 2017

All3DP Amy Karle named one of the “35 Most Influential Women in 3D Printing” 8 March 2017

AFI Magazine “SCIENCE, ART & FASHION: Meet Amy Karle, an artist and designer who uses the mind, body, science and technology to create art” 17 February 2017

3D Printing Media Network “Bioartist Amy Karle is Creating a 3D BioPrinted Hand” 9 February 2017

Scientific American (Taiwanese Edition Magazine) “Science and Art” February 2017

Futurism “This hand was 3D printed... and is made from human cells” 6 January 2017 also at “This 3D Printed Art Project Could Have Medical Applications”

NowThis Future “This Artist is Growing a Human Hand” 31 Dec 2016 (547K Views and 1215 shares as of July 1 2017) Daily Planet / Discovery Channel Amy Karle’s work featured in “The Year in SciTech Special: Discovery Science Worldwide” Dec 2016

Daily Planet Discovery Specials segment featuring Amy Karle’s work “Bringing Bones To Life” 21 October 2016

Tech Alert “An artist is growing a genuine skeletal human hand a lab” 18 October 2016

Digital Trends “Forget Impressionism, This Artist is Growing a Real Skeleton Human Hand in a Lab” 14 October 2016

Popular Science “An Artist Is Growing A Skeleton Human Hand In A Lab” 12 October 2016

Biotech Archives - Magpie Aesthetic “Amy Karle’s Regenerative Reliquary – A 3D Printed Bone Growth Scaffold as Sculpture” 8 October 2016

Art :: Future “Future Factories: Experimenting at the Edges of the Next Industrial Revolution” 12 September 2016

3D Print “3D Printed Scaffold for Artistic Cell Culture” 30 August 2016

Materia “Regenerative Reliquary: Bringing Bones To Life” 12 August 2016

ID Ideas Diseno Industrial “Relicario Regenerativo” 6 August 2016

Design Indaba “Bringing bones to life: Artist prototypes a hand grown out of stem cells” 26 July 2016

Just Add Sharks “Laser Cut Garments” 19 July 2016

Techly “This artist has a bone to pick, and it’s not what you’d expect”. 15 July 2016

AdaFruit “Biohacking The Body To 3D-Print Fantastical Human Bones” 12 July 2016 “The Best and Most Unique 3D Printer Materials: Photopolymer Edition” and

“DIY 3D Printing Resins and the Future of Photopolymers” 12 July 2016 Museum of Bio “Regenerative Reliquary by Amy Karle” 10 July 2016

Fast Company “This Artist is Biohacking the Body To 3D Print Fantastical Human Bones” 6 July 2016

Inspiring Mathematics and Science in Teacher Education “Amy Karle: Bringing Bones to Life” 28 June 2016 “Artist grows real human hand; inspired by work in open source” 18 June 2016

The Creators Project / Vice Magazine “An Artist is Growing a Real Human Hand” 14 June 2016

Vocativ “BioArtist Grows a Sculpture out of Bone” 13 June 2016

Bloge “This Artist IS USING 3D Printing Support and Stem Cells to Grow A Human Hand” 2 June 2016

Prosthetic Knowledge “Bringing Bones To Life” 1 June 2016

3P 3printr “Artist Amy Karle Makes Instructable Manual For A Hand 3D Printed With Stem Cells” 30 May 2016

Spectrum News “Tissue Tussle” 27 May 2016

3D Everyday “Artist Growing Human Hand with 3D Printed Scaffolds and Stem Cells” 26 May 2016

GBEMTI Genomics, Biotech and Emerging Medical Technology “An Artist Is Growing a Hand Out Of Human Stem Cells” 26 May 2016

Med Media “American Artist Raises Her Hand For Stem Cells” 26 May 2016

3D Print Plan “An artist is growing a hand out of human stem cells” 25 May 2016

3ders “Artist Amy Karle is Growing a Human Hand with 3D Printed Scaffolds and Stem Cells” 25 May, 2016

All3DP All About 3D Printing “3D Printed Hand Trellis: Artist Goes Out on a Limb” 25 May 2016

Ars Technica “An artist is prototyping a hand grown out of human stem cells” 24 May 2016

To be brutally honest, I agree with Freshacconci's reversion of your edits. The purpose of Wikipedia is to write in a factual, balanced way about subjects. Your edits seem to be motivated entirely to promote Amy Karle. If Karle is a notable artist I suggest the best route is to write a Wikipedia article about her before adding her to any lists. At the very least, if you're adding her to a list, you need to demonstrate she is a widely known 'bioartist' by adding some serious, non-blog sources about her work. Sionk (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Edith Baumann[edit]

Hello arts experts. The draft linked above has a number of references. Is this a notable artist, and if so is the draft ready to be moved to mainspace?—Anne Delong (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I see some critical assessment of her work, even if the LA Times' Leah Ollman thought her paintings "add little to this genre". For me, the article is a bit tainted by the conflict of interest of its creator, who appears to be her gallerist. I really dislike the indiscriminate list of exhibitions, which appears to be an outdated copy of the list on her own website. There isn't much content. "Baumann's work has been featured in many solo and group exhibitions." should be removed as meaningless peacockery. The statement "Her most recent, are raw pigment acrylic paintings on canvas." is either outdated or plain wrong, cited to an article from 1987, although a quick search showed that she does appear to have been making raw pigment paintings around 2014. I don't see the point of mentioning that she was interviewed and then citing that interview as a source for the statement. If that were removed too, very little would remain. Perhaps someone at WP:WikiProject Women artists wants to attempt to expand and improve it? Mduvekot (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

James Joseph DeMartis[edit]

Would someone mind taking a look at James Joseph DeMartis and assessing it? It's newly created and was not submitted via WP:AFC so it might need some cleaning up assuming the subject meets WP:ARTIST or WP:BIO. At first glance, the "Exhibitions" section seems like it might be an attempt to mention everything per WP:NOTEVERYTHING instead of just focusing on the the more notable ones. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Can someone help me? I noticed the images in this page I created have suddenly disappeared. The four examples of artwork selected were there to illustrate change in the artist's work over the course of four separate decades. I can limit the number of exhibitions by eliminating some if necessary, but the images belong in the article. Thanks for your help. Leezk (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Leezk: I haven't had a chance to review the article myself, but I'm guessing the removal of images was a fair use issue. The guidelines are here but since he died in 1996, the work is still under copyright. Wikipedia tends to be very strict with non-free images (too strict, IMO). Copyrighted images need to be limited (usually just one) and need to be addressed in the article directly. Each image used also has to have a fair use rationale attached to the original file. For all of us editors working in visual arts, it's a huge problem. We find it difficult to add images without someone removing them -- even when a fair use rationale is included and the image is discussed in the article. I don't say this to discourage you -- even Picasso's works are copyrighted and it's difficult to add images to that article. Which is ridiculous. Work on getting one image for the article, one you think is a good representation of his work. Make sure it's mentioned in the article and that the mention is referenced (it can't just be our opinion that the work is significant. A published critical analysis is necessary). Since he died relatively recently by Wikipedia standards, it may be difficult to create a gallery of images. If there is a decent website with his work (preferably an offi ial site run by his estate or dealer), make sure that's included in the infobox so readers can see his work. Hope this helps. freshacconci (✉) 13:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Painting (1946) or Painting (Bacon 1946)[edit]

The titling options/possibilities are: all italics, thus treating "(1946)" as part of the title or italics for "Painting", with an extended qualifier which includes the artist's surname. The discussion is at Talk:Painting (1946)#Requested move 23 July 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD: Benito Juárez (Martinez)[edit]

Project members are invited to contribute to the ongoing AfD discussion re: the Benito Juárez (Martinez) article here:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benito Juárez (Martinez). Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Iva Honyestewa[edit]

Would someone mind assessing Iva Honyestewa? It was created about a week ago and did not go through AfC. It's also been nominated for DYK so it probably should be checked to make sure it's OK and the subject is Wikipedia notable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting article and topic with potential. I'm a bit sceptical myself that the claim is adequately cited that her invention is "the first major innovation in Hopi basket weaving in generations". A lot of the claims seem to be from Honystewa herself. Though the jurors of the Wilma Kaemlein Memorial Acquisition Award describe her winning basket as "unique" and "a truly unique piece if artwork" they don't call it a 'pootsaya'. It might be difficult to get that past DYK.
The personal information and claims about family and friends need citations to show the information is in the public realm. Sionk (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Sionk. I tried cleaning up a bit, but it probably needs some more work before it's ready for DYK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I have cleaned up all citation questions (adding new references and re-citing already existing ones) and clarified language in both the article and the DYK. Also, the citation which contains the Museum expert's comments regarding the "unique"ness of the basket clearly and directly states that they are discussing the "Spider Web - Poostaya by Iva Honyestewa, Hopi / Diné (Navajo)." Hope this helps your concerns Thanks! Skistud (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Karol Vail[edit]

Please note that someone started an article about the new Director of the Peggy Guggenheim Collection, who is also Peggy Guggenheim's granddaughter (Solomon R. Guggenheim's great granddaughter), Karole Vail. You can contribute to the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karol Vail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yerusalem Wedding[edit]

Article is about the painting Yerusalem Wedding. It's completely unsourced, and has been tagged as such since created back in 2014. It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, but is there some more specific guideline that is used to access the notability of paintings or other works of art? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Confederate monuments and memorials[edit]

Not everyone appreciates that I created these redirects, but regardless, I'm working to identify potentially missing Wikipedia articles about Confederate monuments and memorials. If any project members are interested in helping, here's a list of articles for consideration: Talk:List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Articles_to_create. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering creating new article[edit]

Hello everyone! I just got through the main Photography related articles. I see that nobody has ever created "Photography types". In all F.A. universities this is a huge topic. I was thinking to create the article and describe and reference and exemplify all major photography types. Do you think it would be useful or everything is already covered in the main article (Photography). Robert G. (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. Do you mean the kinds of subjects listed under Category:Photographs_by_topic, or the genres listed in the Template:Photography?

Selected exhibitions[edit]

What is the consensus about the inclusion of a list of selected exhibitions that has no sources in artists' biographies? Here is just one example; there are many such articles. While reviewing new pages, I came upon Belkis Ramírez, which contains a list that is a 1/1 copy of the list of Selected Exhibitions at her gallery's website. Should it be removed as a copyvio? Should the list be retained, even though it appears to be more a comprehensive than selective, or trimmed down to include only exhibitions in notable galleries/museums? Should only exhibitions that can be sourced independently and reliably be included per WP:SOURCELIST? Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mduvekot, to my knowledge there isn't a MOS page on this, but regardless, I'd side with your instinct in this case. In contemporary biographies, I normally only cover what I can reference from reliable, secondary sources (not press releases, not gallery's site, not CV), as the secondary coverage indicates that the exhibition was important to critics, not only the artist/gallery. As for your case, if the list is a direct copy from elsewhere, delete as copyvio, and if a handful of exhibitions were noteworthy enough to be reviewed, reference each item in the list (e.g., Nadia Kaabi-Linke#Selected exhibitions). Some bios won't even warrant "Selected exhibition" sections—depends on culture/era, and whether a sourced list would help the reader. czar 00:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)