Looks like below you have it as "abstract expressionism" (i.e. not capitalised). Please standardise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
such as the subjects of Hopeless (1963) and Drowning Girl (1963) - why give the year of DG here? It's as if this section was copied and pasted from elsewhere
Lichtenstein's first marriage to Isabel Wilson, which resulted in two sons, lasted from 1949 to 1965. The couple had separated in 1963. - Sentences can easily be combined
This is an example of Lichtenstein's post-1963 comics-based women who "look hard, crisp, brittle, and uniformly modish in appearance, as if they all came out of the same pot of makeup." - This... What?
Well, without seeing the argument one cannot quite judge the validity of the statement. To say plainly that they are is not defensible, just like saying that they aren't without an argument wouldn't be. Any sources which have the same information and actually give a reason? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Lichtenstein Foundation website, Drowning Girl was part of Lichtenstein's first exhibition at Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles from April 1 – April 27, 1963, featuring Masterpiece, Portrait of Madame Cézanne and other works from 1962 and 1963 as well as his second solo exhibition at the Leo Castelli Gallery from September 28 – October 24, 1963 that included Torpedo...Los!, Baseball Manager, In the Car, Conversation, and Whaam!. - too long, needs to be split so parsing is easier
is borrowed from an example of a comic-book panel depiction in which the moment is relatively more "pregnant" with drama related to other times than most moments. - Rather difficult to parse (particularly "drama related to other times than most moments)
"is borrowed from an example of a comic-book panel depiction of a moment relatively more "pregnant" with past-dependent drama than most (moments)", perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying your source is wonky, I'm saying you need to give attribution (this reply goes to the other instances as well). Per WP:INTEXT, "In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing. It can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words. It avoids inadvertent plagiarism, and helps the reader see where a position is coming from." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Broken footnotes: Coplan 1971 does not go anywhere, and Roy Lichtenstein: October Files has nothing going to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Coplan goes, {{Sfn}} seems to be doing what it is suppose to, although I have never employed this template myself. I don't know what is expected of the template at WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest against that, particularly as reviews may be mixed. You can keep the same construction of the body, just lose the section headers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the quote: "In contrast to this theme of anticipation, we find what I call the 'post-coital perdition' pictures. The star witness here is of course Drowning Girl from 1963, whose drama may seem to be at its climax, but its nevertheless past its peak...The picture is Lichtenstein's finest formulation of a counter-image to the many explosions in his universe – for this maelstrom, implosion par excellence. The girl is sinking into the depths, completely resigned, although her resignation is rooted in pride: rather die than give in to Brad. Although she is lying in water up to her neck, almost under one of the Hokusai-like waves, the tears are drawn with classic Lichtenstein waxy fullness – popcorn tears – and you can assume they are important as a signal, for they can surely have no naturalistic justification in the scene of all-enveloping water."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the quote: "In contrast to this theme of anticipation, we find what I call the 'post-coital perdition' pictures. The star witness here is of course Drowning Girl from 1963, whose drama may seem to be at its climax, but its nevertheless past its peak...The picture is Lichtenstein's finest formulation of a counter-image to the many explosions in his universe – for this maelstrom, implosion par excellence. The girl is sinking into the depths, completely resigned, although her resignation is rooted in pride: rather die than give in to Brad. Although she is lying in water up to her neck, almost under one of the Hokusai-like waves, the tears are drawn with classic Lichtenstein waxy fullness – popcorn tears – and you can assume they are important as a signal, for they can surely have no naturalistic justification in the scene of all-enveloping water."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a December 1964 Art Magazine review of his October 24 – September 19, 1964 Castelli Gallery show, he was referred to as the author of I Don't Care, I'd Rather Sink (Drowning Girl). - He means who? If L, what point does this sentence serve?
Garrels says it is a rendering "in a simplified vocabulary" produced while putting aside his mechanical objectivity. - so Garrels puts aside his (own) objectivity?
The lede and body are not always counted together (note how the overlinking script counts the lede and body differently), and the link in the lead is piped (i.e. "Ben Day dots" is not explicit). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most important element of Lichtenstein's procedure was "the enlargement and unification of his source material". attribution needed for clear opinion
Lichtenstein once said of his technique: "I take a cliche and try to organize its forms to make it monumental." - Once again, not inherently related to Drowning Girl. Also, how is this negative? Cliches may be trite, but they aren't necessarily bad. If we look for another word for "foothill" to avoid that dead metaphor, for instance, we are just making more work for ourselves while making sure our meaning is not easily understood by readers. I'm sure visual cliches work the same: lots of black, very little lighting = sombre, evilness, etc... It's not bad, it's a shortcut.
Brian O'Doherty wrote that Lichtenstein's work was not art, saying, he was" - so O'Doherty is saying that he (himself) is one of the worst artists in America? Your only two noun phrases in this sentence are O'Doherty and L's art, and only one of which could be replaced by the pronoun "he".
Lichtenstein made Drowning Girl a cornerstone of his career because of "his extraordinary sense of organization, his ability to use a sweeping curve and manipulate it into an allover pattern ..." - according to who?
The result of this work is described - by who? Not by the same person, yet by not providing attribution you make it seem as if these arguments are building on each other
It is one of the most significant paintings of the pop art movement, and part of the Museum of Modern Art's permanent collection since 1971. The painting is considered among Lichtenstein's most significant works, perhaps on a par with his acclaimed 1963 diptych Whaam!. - Feels like something that should be attributed and/or cited, even in the lead.
Generally, the WP:LEAD is either suppose to be fully cited or fully uncited. I don't want to clutter the LEAD with citations, plus it will look more consistent with the other Lichtenstein FA (Look Mickey) if it is fully uncited. The citations are in the main body for this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lichtenstein made drawings of comic strip characters in 1958. Andy Warhol produced his earliest paintings in the style in 1960. Lichtenstein, unaware of Warhol's work, produced Look Mickey and Popeye in 1961. - Why the jump from L to W to L again?
Do I need to explain that Lichtenstein and Warhol were the leading practitioners of pop art at the time and the two on the forefront of comic-based fine art.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I got that, it's that you jump between subjects rather than give a logical progression. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most important element of Lichtenstein's procedure was "the enlargement and unification of his source material". His method entailed "strengthening of the formal aspects of the composition, a stylization of motif, and a 'freezing' of both emotion and actions". Extreme examples of his formalization become "virtual abstraction" when the viewer recalls that the motif is an element of a larger work. Thus, Lichtenstein reinforced a non-realist view of comic strips and advertisements, presenting them as artificial images with minimalistic graphic techniques. Lichtenstein's magnification of his source material stressed the plainness of his motifs as an equivalent to mechanical commercial drawing, leading to implications about his statements on modern industrial America. Nonetheless, Lichtenstein appears to have accepted the American capitalist industrial culture. - This whole paragraph is not about Drowning Girl, but L as a painter (note how it fits Whaam! just as well). I think it can serve as a sign of what's wrong with this article at a fundamental level: the article purports to be about Drowning Girl, but it goes all over the place and presents unrelated information as being intrinsic to Drowning Girl itself, when it is actually related to L as a painter.
One could say that this content is about Lichtenstein at the peak of his career when he painted his two most well-known works and that the content is extremely relevant to works produced in that window of time only.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One could say that, yes, but one would also have to tie the paragraph in with Drowning Girl. "In Drowning Girl, this is manifested as ..." if the sources support it, for instance. Also, statements such as "Lichtenstein appears to have accepted the American capitalist industrial culture." are opinions and should be attributed to the source in-text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have divided this content into three portions and appended it where it is related to Drowning Girl content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole negative reception section (undue if I ever saw it; many reviews can be mixed) is about L as an artist and not about Drowning Girl in particular. Sure, it could be applicable to Drowning Girl, but in the end it's a cookie cutter section which could be at home in any article on L's works from this period.
Shouldn't a reader of one of his important works be taught about his detractors during the period of that work?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit of context is fine, but none of this is explicitly related to Drowning Girl, which is what our main focus should be here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose barring some serious heavy lifting. This needs to be streamlined to focus on Drowning Girl itself, for one (particularly the reception section, although some other parts look like they could be trimmed). Context is good, but not in this much detail. Barely half the article seems to be about the painting proper. Also, we need attribution for opinions. No work is objectively an artist's best; for Goya, for instance, some may find The Dog his best, while others may prefer Saturn Devouring His Son or The Disasters of War series. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Museum of Modern Art's webpage for this work explains its acquisition as follows: "Philip Johnson Fund (by exchange) and gift of Mr. and Mrs. Bagley Wright". - very, very awkward construction. Rephrase it in your own words
"and their webpage for this work explains its was acquired by exchange from the Philip Johnson Fund and as a gift of Mr. and Mrs. Bagley Wright." - So it came from two sources? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read this as meaning that MoMA recieved a give that they were able to exchange at some great discount to the market for the work. Advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we're not clear on the origin, we shouldn't guess. I'd suggest leaving it out and just "it was acquired in (year)", assuming the source supports it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lichtenstein's tinkering with the source material resulted in a recomposition with sharper focus after he eliminated several elements that distract from the depiction of the woman, such as the capsized boat, troubled male subject and the general seascape. The result was a swirling, swooping waves and "animate white foam" that envelope the subject with a "pictorial bouyancy" that form an "aquatic continuum". - don't you already have this in the description section?
I have made no assertions of what works are Lichtenstein's best on WP. I have made statements about which are his most well known and which are his most important. Note that all the content that you claim is general is only relevant to a three year window of a career that spanned over 50 years. I am not citing general sources, but sources focussed on his work from 1961 to 1964 or 1965 in all instances when you might interpret the content as general Lichtenstien commentary..--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The negative reception section is of only indirect relation to Drowning Girl. Your earlier sections tie the two together much better (i.e. " Another possible influence on his emphasis on depicting distressed women in the early to mid-1960s was that his first marriage was dissolving at the time. Lichtenstein's 1949 first marriage to Isabel Wilson resulted in two sons, a 1963 separation and a 1965 divorce." is easily understandable as relating to Drowning Girl. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've got L. before you even link his name (first paragraph, background). It mostly looks better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly not sure if this is by Julia Langley or Kelly Rand. Would attribute if I was more sure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps note the work itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "According to (work), ..." instead of "According to (author), ..." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the exact word used in the source provided. I would imagine given the context the cited source is making the point that he made the style esoterically distant from its ordinary usage. That's a bit of a mouthful, so I'd rather we use rarified like the original source, but I can rewrite to use esoterically distant? HidingT 08:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither, preferably. Neither will be accessible to the average reader. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've amended the article as I don't think we can call it a unique style given that he's adopted/mimicked a style from elsewhere. The modern art theory of Lichtenstein is that by copying comic book panels and placing them on museum walls he elevated low art to high art. We could say "The style he elevated was...", but that doesn't really strike me as any more accessible? HidingT 10:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a step in the right direction (although I agree, you'd need a bit more than just "elevated"; "adopted" is good in a pinch too). Perhaps "the style he adopted, considered by critics to have brought/elevated the low art of comics to the high art world of galleries, was...", assuming this can be sourced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Perhaps "the style he adopted, considered by critics to have brought/elevated the low art of comics to the high art world of galleries, was...", assuming this can be sourced." - How do you feel about this wording, Tony? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm explicitly asking for your opinion, so yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking me to comment on content from an offline source contributed by another editor. From where I sit, I have no problem with your suggestion, but I don't know the source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could have mentioned that earlier when I asked. Hiding, does the source support such a wording? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to what is being asked. The source supports the use of the word rarified. I'm not sure on what basis Crisco 1492 objects to it since it is sourced material. I amended the text to a new source from the one TonyTheTiger used because the one TonyTheTiger used was describing the original comic book style incorrectly, because it was a modern art source and so I utilised a comics critic describing the art and Lichtenstein's use of it instead. Now I'm not sure what you want the text to say. Rarified is directly supported by the text, "adopted", "utilised", "borrowed" or "used" would also work. If you want a source that says he elevated the style, then Roy Lichtenstein: American Indian Encounters is the one. Beaty would work as a counter, pointing out that Lichtenstein's work presents a barrier to comics art being considered high art since it would devalue Lichtenstein. Griffiths' interview would also come into play here. And then Marc Ellerby offers the general view of comics artists on Lichtenstein here that would also expand such a section. But is that all relevant here or in the main Lichtenstein article? I'm not the person who took issue with the word rarified, which is cited and sourced. And the purpose of the text here, at least initially, was to describe the style. I feel this is the best source to describe the style. HidingT 19:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My question, originally, was "How do you feel about, and does the source support, 'the style he adopted, considered by critics to have brought/elevated the low art of comics to the high art world of galleries, was...'", a phrasing which would have indicated to readers your explanation of "the point [was] that he made the style esoterically distant from its ordinary usage."? I haven't been talking about rarified for almost three days now, a word which I opposed as to "rarify" (make rare) a style is not common usage and likely not going to be understood. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And my point is, if the word rarify supports that then yes, the source supports it. As I say, I have no issue with the word rarify so it is perhaps not for me to say what the source supports and does not support. The source states that Lichtenstein rarified the style. I am asking you, does that mean your desired text is supported? My apologies for taking three days to respond to your concerns, I can only edit Wikipedia as time allows. My feeling is since rarified is the word used in the original text, it's the best word to use. HidingT 15:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source supports the word rarify =/= we should use it. We are aiming for general audiences and maximum clarity, meaning we should stick close to denotative understandings of words (even if the sources act otherwise). Through this entire discussion I didn't question if the source supports it, but how it's supposed to be understood in this context by the general reader. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too am a bit uncomfortable with the word "rarified" because it does not deliver as much meaning to a reader as another word that they would be more likely to understand the meaning of. I hope to see an agreement on some other term to express this content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well "elevated" is a synonym for "rarified". Does that help? HidingT 18:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if one of you would just put "elevated" whereever it should be and the other said O.K. (and hopefully Support from Crisco).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
