Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

New materials (painting)

This article needs work, help and a new name...see talk here:[1]

I think it can turn into an interesting article...Modernist (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Romaine Brooks GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Romaine Brooks for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found an image issue, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. The issue should not be too difficult to address. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it should maintain its GA status. Actually there are only 4 non-free images. The rest qualify under {[pd-1923-abroad]} as they were publically exhibited before 1923. I think the four can remain...Modernist (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

This thread looks serious enough to be paid attention to...[2]...Modernist (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
- This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
- This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
- There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
The data is now retained indefinitely.
The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [3]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Freeze (exhibition)

Could do with some input. I don't have much time right now. See article talk page. Ty 02:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Google image search for free images

A new feature on Google image search allows a parameter for free images in the advanced search option.[4] That doesn't mean they are free, just that they have been tagged by someone as such. I found one copyvio immediately. Ty 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Lorenzetti

What is the point of hassling this image? Is the threat to delete this image really necessary? -

given that it is it is from the middle ages and its in the pd I don't understand this...I understand the tag says it needs a source - but for what reason? WP:UCS says let it be...Modernist (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

See tagging editor's talk page: User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#Tagging_out_of_hand. Ty 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

See also this new legal threat, which might be serious. The first "here" link has the main Commons discussion. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion here: This thread looks serious enough to be paid attention to...[5]...Modernist (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. With this new legal threat, it may be worth ensuring our sourcing on images of this sort is up to scratch. I certainly wouldn't have tagged this myself, but a little more information wouldn't be amiss. However, I would not support deletion of this image, which is clearly PD in the United States (providing it genuinely is a painting by Lorenzetti- I'll leave that one up to you!). J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Western painting

NFC image issues need to be addressed. See Talk:Western_painting#Number_of_images. Ty 12:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Canaletto

I have conducted a reassessment of this article and dues to the number of concerns raised, I have de-listed it. Review at Talk:Canaletto/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Caravaggio

I have conducted a GA Sweeps reassessment of this article and found a large number of concerns which can be see ay Talk:Caravaggio/GA1. The article has been de-listed, but can be brought back to WP:GAN when these have been addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hirst photo in Freeze article

Please weigh in your opinion here: [6]...Modernist (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Damien Hirst article

Has a number of sentences with no sources which may be POV. Other editors opinions needed please. [[7]]--Kbob (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Input not needed, as there is no disagreement over this point. There are some sentences which need sourcing. Routine stuff. Ty 01:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I restate my request for input from other editors despite the comment above from another editor on the article who appears to want to undermine my efforts to bring in new editors.[[8]]--Kbob (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? That is a violation of WP:NPA quite the contrary the other editor is going out of his way to accomodate your request...Modernist (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There does not appear to be an attempt to undermine your good faith efforts; it reads to me as if Tyrenius is supportive of your request for better sourcing (there is no disagreement over this point), is willing to help with the research in the near future [9], and has asked you to be bold and aid in revising the text [10]. You've raised good points, and Ty, who is an excellent contributor, is encouraging you. JNW (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is very clear. I posted asking for input from other editors and the editor who opposes my assessment of the article posts just below my message: "Input not needed".--Kbob (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But I did not oppose your assessment. I agreed with it and said in reply, "Quite right".[11] What is it that I am meant to be opposing? Ty 21:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Art Renewal Center

Opinions requested at Talk:Art_Renewal_Center#Vallen's_opinion. Ty 00:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:Ripley CastleDE.jpg

Hi, I was wondering if you could help settle a dating/authorship issue on the file concerned.

It mentions it's a Baxter print, but also mentions another indivdual (in whose books the print may have appeared). The date of 1880 also seems outside the lifetime of THE George Baxter.

Thanks in advance. :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Joanne Gair fair use images

The Joanne Gair has a {{non free}} tag and the talk page has a section discussing this issue. Commentary is welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Commented there...Modernist (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Archives of American Art

Just a heads up - I came across this article and tagged it with your project. APK that's not my name 19:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Utility of outlines to wikiprojects

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 23:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments for a merge of The Tunnel under the Atlantic with Maurice Benayoun

Any input would be appreciated, although I think this is a rather straightforward merge proposal. freshacconci talktalk 11:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I have a question about this artists notability. Charles James Martin (artist) appreciate any opinions as to whether or not this is a legitimately notable inclusion...Modernist (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say he scrapes in as a teacher of Georgia O'Keefe, & the article is nicely done, if no doubt somewhat COI. With over 30 refs, most from the NYT or the College teachers mag, I'd say the referencing is pretty good. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the COI? freshacconci talktalk 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume it is an act of family piety. There are personal photos uploaded by the original author, & a family letter is cited. But it seems neutally written. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed to notability tag. Thanks I needed anothers take on the article...Modernist (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Need some eyes at Birgit Stauch

Edit warring by another editor who is reverting my NPOV edits, blanking out talk page comments and general incivility. freshacconci talktalk 14:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What's missing from Outline of art?

...copied from the Arts project talk. This page is really terrible. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 00:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a complete and total mess. "Art" should only be used for the visual arts, by convention here. But this has literature and tv, but not music or ballet etc, popping up at odd points. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the page is weak. I'm not sure such an article, in the manner its editors are aiming for, can have value. Ceoil (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Albert Henry Krehbiel revisited

I would appreciate other opinions concerning his inclusion at Impressionism - discussion is here: [12]...Modernist (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Imo Albert Henry Krehbiel should be in the list with other American Impressionists or with clarification of the period Impressionism in relation to American Impressionism. Similarly as was handled in Lyrical Abstraction. (Salmon1 (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC))

American Family (artwork exhibition)

Just an FYI, this article had a proposed deletion template on it but the photographer is notable and there's a reasonable amount of coverage of the exhibition through critical reviews. The article has been around for years as a one-sentence stub and probably deserves improvement. I tagged it with your project in case someone wants to take a look at it, thanks! -- Atama ^chat 21:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of The Battle of Alexander at Issus

I have done a GA Reassessment of The Battle of Alexander at Issus as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to nearly meet the current GA Criteria. I did see a couple of issues that cause me to not immediately keep the article at GA. I have placed it on hold for a week pending work. My review can be found here. I am notifying all interested projects and editors in the hopes that work can be done. Should you have questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Views to face

Hello! Please visit Talk:Portrait painting#profile, half-turn, three-quarter, or full face! Thx! --Diwas (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Some help with a sock/WP:POINTy editor

A new editor User:Artshoworganizer, a probable sock of User:Cramyourspam (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Ward), is creating some WP:POINTy AFD noms to some articles I created, plus a few others (including Matthew Barney). It looks like he didn't properly nominate them, just stuck the template at the top, but I'm not sure if I can just revert these or not. Anyone know if this is just a matter of reverting as vandalism? freshacconci talktalk 03:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind--I just reverted it all and sent him four warnings. Another editor tagged him as a sock. freshacconci talktalk 04:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've indef blocked User:Artshoworganizer as an abusive sock of User:Cramyourspam. Ty 04:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

400+ images in ONE article?

No, I'm not making this up. History of painting See for yourself. I can't imagine why we need more than 400 images to convey ANY subject in an encyclopedic way. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The earlier galleries are too long, & what is worse, not very carefully selected, and poorly captioned. But if you think the ratio of image to text is inappropriate, I suggest you look at any book on the subject. Copious illustration is essential for art history, as most here understand. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree an art book will have lots of images, a single article on WP should not be trying to do the same as a book; a series of articles however can replicate that function. Use summary style (Which is sorta there already), put the bulk of the images in those articles - if not filtering down more as needed. Use a single image (which will hjave to be editorially selected) to represent each section to help make the article visually appealing. Even if all 400 were free (they all aren't) this would still be a problem. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The article covers the history of painting from the 21st century to the caves of Lascaux. Most imagery is pd. WP is a unique, unconventional if you will; online encyclopedia of remarkable innovation. The artbook aspect of this article is important to visually explain the art of painting. in the spirit of what can be done, WP:IAR, WP:UCS it is a great article. It needs more scholarship, better imagery, better text, but it is improving. The idea that 1 image represents the Renaissance, and 1 image represents the Baroque, and 1 image represents painting in China during the Song Dynasty is absurd. The article lives up to the spectacular potential that WP offers...Modernist (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is visual art that is being covered. The common way that art history has been taught in academic settings has involved the showing of slides projected onto a screen that was viewed by students in a classroom. It is hard to get away from the supplementation of words with images. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think you need 400+ images to convey this topic? Yes, Wikipedia is a unique resource. No, each article isn't a book. Further, this article is just too long. At 177k (not even including the kb of all the images being displayed), it's #158 on the list of long pages on Wikipedia, placing it in the top 0.006% longest pages. I'm sure with the images it blows the roof off. See Wikipedia:Article size. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - it's not just the images - it is a size and usability problem. 100kb is the practical limit for text in an article per WP:SIZE. Treat this as a summary article to establish the reader to where they likely want to go next for information, but they don't need to be fully versed on painting via one article. See World War II for a reasonably good example of a lead article that has many many splinter articles that utilize imagery better. And yes, I recognize that it is impossible to represent one era of painting with one example, but that's not what's being asked. On the specific era pages, use what is necessary, but on this page you can select one image that visually makes the article more interesting without overloading on images. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are far too many images, even for a subject where images are central (which they are not for WWII). It also makes the page slow to open. However, a restriction of one per section is just going to the other extreme. WP:SUMMARY is the way forward, and the images have been selected, so it will be relatively easy to move them to dedicated articles in due course. In terms of length, there is a featured article, Intelligent design with 178 kB at number 104 on Special:Longpages.[13] A significant problem is the small number of editors on wikipedia with sufficient knowledge and interest to edit art articles. This article is a work in progress, not a finished product. Of rather more concern than the number of images is the disproportionate space given to Western painting, in particular the 20th century, which currently occupies half the article. I find it anomalous that in an assessment of the article, this point has not been raised, and the focus is all on the images. Surely the overall structure is more important, and necessary to establish before the images can be properly assessed in detail. Ty 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Related to this; there are apparently ~65 fair use images on this article. It would be a very hard argument to make that anything more than a fraction of these images are warranted on this page. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That is again linked with the article structure, as those images are going to be 20th century ones. As things stand, they are a disproportionately small number, i.e. 50% of the article has only 16% of the images. As the aim is to produce a balanced article of text and images, both aspects need to be addressed together. Ty 22:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

65 non-free images almost certainly can not be justified. Whether it is a disproportionately small number relative to the entire article is not at issue. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3a. Are there really 65 distinct, different points being illustrated here that must be illustrated to support the text? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're replying to my post, you seem to have misread it. I didn't say 65 non-free images could be justified. My point was the disproportionate structure of the article, which also contains another disproportion of images, and the necessity for resolving all these issues, preferably with an overall aim, rather than piecemeal. BTW colons, not bullet points, are normally used on talk pages: Wikipedia:TPG#Layout. Ty 23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for reading it differently. As to the bullet points, I'll continue to use them, but thanks. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's particularly bad practice to insert them in the middle of a thread which starts without them, and hinders reading the thread. Please follow the guideline. Thanks. Ty 23:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've previously been counseled on their use and rebutted the counseling, based on common practice of a large number of administrators. Can we please stay focused on the issue that started this thread? If you have concerns about my editing style, this isn't the forum for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I have concerns about your approach on this page to this issue. You have come to a good place to raise it, and you are welcome here to do so. I agree with you that there is a matter to be addressed. It is an important article, currently no. 172 in Visual Arts pages with over 18,000 views a month.[14] It is also a complex subject that requires careful attention from editors who know what they're doing, and these are thin on the ground. As the posts above show, it is something that requires diplomatic handling.

You have introduced the matter in an aggressive way with "shouting" in the heading and your initial post. Per Wikipedia:TPG#Good_practices:

Avoid excessive markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force through Italic text, Bolded text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!!

Please note: "It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force". This is something then compounded by your use of bullet points, despite not even starting the thread with that format and it not being used by others in the first five posts. It gives the impression that you think your posts merit a special mark to give them more significance than posts by other editors. As you have said, others in the past have also objected to this practice. If you continue, then consistency forces other editors to follow that format, which technically is not as flexible for these threaded posts.

You have come here to ask for a collegiate response in the application of a guideline, yet ignore the content of another guideline yourself, and present yourself in a manner which is likely simply alienate other editors. J Milburn, who you know well as another editor like yourself with a particular interest in NFC issues, has worked very successfully with here, as can be seen directly above at #Grant Wood:

I have seen that the visual arts WikiProject is one willing to take non-free content concerns seriously, so any issues in future I will certainly raise on the project talk page. Thanks J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors here are prepared to work on these issues, but merit respect and also an appreciation of the difficulties with the small number of editors available, some of whom are working on a FA at the moment.

This issue needs considered dialogue. It is not just about the images, but about the article as a whole. It is not going to be resolved properly overnight, and requires slow careful work to get right. I suggest this matter is taken to the article talk page to work through in the first instance with a consideration of the whole text and the place of images within it.

Ty 09:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm exiting the issue. I'm letting another editor handle it. I think this is a judicious use of resources since it is apparent we can not carry on a conversation, despite my request, that focuses on the issue. Instead, we're focusing on my editing style. Good day, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Artist

I really dont like the colour of the title bar at the head of this template. Its too loud, too bright, and the same colour of the multitude of blue links that normally over populate wikipedia lead sections. I would suggest a more muted colour, a darkish green or brown, maybe. To my eye, the bar in Georges-Pierre Seurat is a bad clash. I'm not sure where to bring this up, so trying here. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at other-language wikis to see what they do. I changed the Infobox Artist template to use a less saturated blue, the one found on Spanish wiki for "person infoboxes". However they use white text, while we have black. I like the white text better with this color; otherwise it's a bit dull. Feel free to experiment... Outriggr (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the white text. I think the solution is to leave the color as is and change individual articles to suit the article. Pollock is Silver, Paul Klee is yellow - but now nothing is readable, I'm changing it back to black type...Modernist (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize the backgrounds were changed on an individual article basis. Outriggr (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an option. Some use yellow, some gray, some silver, some blue, it is changeable. The new bluegreen is pretty good I think it's warmer than the darker blue...Modernist (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted. The blue has been in place for a long time. It affects a lot of articles, and needs to be discussed and a consensus achieved for changing it. There is already previous discussion on Template talk:Infobox Artist, which is the best place to post. Ty 12:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I still like the original darker blue. As mentioned above the color can be adjusted for an individual article if necessary...Modernist (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Cleanup listing

Lots to do here:Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Cleanup listing...Modernist (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

East Asian calligraphy

Hello, there is a contest against totally undiscussed cut-and-paste blanking/merging/splitting of East Asian calligraphy by Asoer (talk · contribs). I don't see any active discussion on the edit, so there is naturally no consensus for that. Since it is pertinent to at least "four WikiProject", I'm drawing your attention to the article and hope you would give some useful input on the matter on Talk:East Asian calligraphy. Any active members who are interests in East Asian culture/art would be greatly helpful for the issue. Thanks.--Caspian blue 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#What_to_call_East_Asian_calligraphy. Asoer (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Expressionism

Input requested at Talk:Expressionism#deleted_Lyrical_Abstraction. Ty 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect your practice of the rules of Wikipedia and I hope that this experience will benefit us all. (Salmon1 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

Frankly to delete Nicolas de Staël, Hans Hartung, Pierre Soulages, Larry Poons, Jules Olitski, Helen Frankenthaler, Norman Bluhm from expressionism is the height of academic absurdity, in defiance of WP:UCS AND WP:IAR. Because an obscure art critic does not mention those people and others by name in her book, does not constitute erasing those expressionist artists and others from history. Nowhere is it stated or believed that only figurative art is considered to be expressionist or formalist. Reliance on one book, or one point of view and one critic, in contradiction to dozens of volumes to the contrary, is well beyond any concept of common sense. Read Walter Darby Bannard, read Clement Greenberg, read Michael Fried read Barbara Rose, read Sidney Tillim for starters...Modernist (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about having Lyrical Abstraction be represented in the article as part of Expressionism. According to the reference provided by Tyrenius- BNET Art Publications-concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists, January, 2003 by Ian Chilver:

"lyrical abstraction A rather vague term, used differently by different writers, applied to a type of expressive but non-violent abstract painting flourishing particularly in the 1950s and 1960s; the term was evidently coined by the French painter Georges Mathieu , who spoke of ‘abstraction lyrique’ in 1947. European critics often use it more or less as a synonym for Art Informel or Tachisme ; Americans sometimes see it as an emasculated version of Abstract Expressionism To some writers it implies particularly a lush and sumptuous use of colour."

From the Tate definition:

"Expressionism: Specifically, and with a capital letter, the term is associated with modern German art, particularly the Brücke and Blaue Reiter groups, but in this narrow sense is best referred to as German Expressionism. Expressionism as a general term refers to art in which the image of reality is more or less heavily distorted in form and colour in order to make it expressive of the artists inner feelings or ideas about it.'

The reference cited from the Tate is almost identical with that of Marilyn Stokstad, the British art historian: “Expressionism (is) the manipulation of formal or representational elements to convey intense feelings. ^[1] On the basis of the references cited, Lyrical Abstraction does not belong to the article of Expressionism. The discussed references should be added to the article. (Salmon1 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

That is only the first part of the Tate definition. The rest is as follows:

In expressionist art colour in particular can be highly intense and non-naturalistic, brushwork is typically free and paint application tends to be generous and highly textured. Expressionist art tends to be emotional and sometimes mystical. It can be seen as an extension of Romanticism. In its modern form it may be said to start with Van Gogh and then form a major stream of modern art embracing, among many others, Munch, Fauvism and Matisse, Rouault, the Brücke and Blaue Reiter groups, Schiele, Kokoschka, Klee, Beckmann, most of Picasso, Moore, Sutherland, Bacon, Giacometti, Dubuffet, Baselitz, Kiefer, and the New Expressionism of the 1980s. It went abstract with Abstract Expressionism.

Please note the concluding sentence. The place to continue this discussion is on the article talk page, not here. Ty 02:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago GAR

Please contribute your thoughts to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago/1 to discuss its recent delisting from WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Working toward consensus

Deletion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism

There is a strong opposition by some to the deletion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article, Expressionism. This has been expressed by successive reversion of Lyrical Abstraction to the article and a warning to block me from editing.

I would like to make the argument for the deletion as part of the process of working toward consensus.

There is a paragraph about Lyrical Abstraction that has been placed repeatedly in several Wikipedia articles:

Western painting

Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, 1971, Lyrical Abstraction

”Lyrical Abstraction in the late 1960s is characterized by the paintings of Dan Christensen, Ronnie Landfield, Peter Young and others,and along with the Fluxus movement and Postminimalism (a term first coined by Robert Pincus-Witten in the pages of Artforum in 1969)^[2] sought to expand the boundaries of abstract painting and Minimalism by focusing on process, new materials and new ways of expression.”

The same paragraph is repeated in another topic:

History of painting

Section: Washington Color School, Shaped Canvas, Abstract Illusionism, Lyrical Abstraction

Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, 1968, Lyrical Abstraction

”Lyrical Abstraction in the late 1960s is characterized by the paintings of Dan Christensen, Ronnie Landfield, Peter Young and others, and along with the Fluxus movement and Postminimalism (a term first coined by Robert Pincus-Witten in the pages of Artforum in 1969)^[3] sought to expand the boundaries of abstract painting and Minimalism by focusing on process, new materials and new ways of expression."

Once again the same paragraph is repeated in another topic:

20th century Western painting

See also: Modern Art, Modernism, Contemporary art, Western painting, History of painting materials and new ways of expression.

Section: Shaped canvas, Washington Color School, Abstract Illusionism, Lyrical Abstraction

Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, 1971, Lyrical Abstraction

"Lyrical Abstraction in the late 1960s is characterized by the paintings of Dan Christensen, Ronnie Landfield, Peter Young and others,and along with the Fluxus movement and Postminimalism (a term first coined by Robert Pincus-Witten in the pages of Artforum in 1969)^[4] sought to expand the boundaries of abstract painting and Minimalism by focusing on process, new materials and new ways of expression."

Indeed Lyrical Abstraction was associated with Color Field painting not with Expressionism:

Color Field

Section: Color Field Movement

Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, Rite of Spring, 1985. Ronnie Landfield's work emerged during the 1960s. His works are reflections of both Chinese landscape painting and the Color Field idiom. His paintings bridge Color Field painting with Lyrical Abstraction.^[5]

"During the late 1960s Larry Poons whose earlier Dot paintings were associated with Op Art began to produce looser and more free formed paintings that were referred to as his Lozenge Ellipse paintings of 1967-1968. Along with John Hoyland, Walter Darby Bannard, Larry Zox, Ronald Davis, Ronnie Landfield, Dan Christensen and several other young painters a new movement that related to Color Field painting began to form; eventually called Lyrical Abstraction."^[6]^[7]

Abstract Expressionism

Section: In the 1960s after Abstract Expressionism

"In abstract painting during the 1950s and 1960s several new directions like Hard-edge painting and other forms of Geometric abstraction, as a reaction against the subjectivism of Abstract expressionism began to appear in artist studios and in radical avant-garde circles. Clement Greenberg became the voice of Post-painterly abstraction; by curating an influential exhibition of new painting that toured important art museums throughout the United States in 1964. Color field painting, Hard-edge painting and Lyrical Abstraction^[8] emerged as radical new directions."

Late Modernism

Section: Abstract painting and sculpture in the 1960s and 1970s.

Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, Garden of Delight, 1971, Lyrical Abstraction from the early 1970s

"Lyrical Abstraction shares similarities with Color Field Painting and Abstract Expressionism especially in the freewheeling usage of paint - texture and surface. Direct drawing, calligraphic use of line, the effects of brushed, splattered, stained, squeegeed, poured, and splashed paint superficially resemble the effects seen in Abstract Expressionism and Color Field Painting. However the styles are markedly different. Setting it apart from Abstract Expressionism and Action Painting of the 1940s and 1950s is the approach to composition and drama. As seen in Action Painting there is an emphasis on brushstrokes, high compositional drama, dynamic compositional tension. While in Lyrical Abstraction there is a sense of compositional randomness, all over composition, low key and relaxed compositional drama and an emphasis on process, repetition, and an all over sensibility."

In order to consider the exclusion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism one must consider the definition of Expressionism:

Expressionist imagery exploded into modern art from the subconscious. Its divers formal means and emotional effects range from anguish to exuberance. As the powerful, personal creations of modern individuals, these images have little in common except their inventive power and their reliance upon a distinctly private vision.

In the late 1939, at the beginning of World War II, New York welcomed a great number of leading European artists.

The heritage of their interest in the mythic realm of the unconscious would be continued—and extended—by another group of younger, New World artists—New York School. ^[9]

Relying on the definition of Expressionism and considering all the above repeated Wikipedia segments it should become evident that Lyrical Abstraction should not be part of Expressionism.

There is further consideration for its deletion from the article: Clement Greenberg’s Definition of Modernism according to Barbara Rose:

’’Clement Greenberg, quoting Mathew Arnold, saw the task of the critic as defining the mainstream tradition…But at any given time the mainstream is only part of the total activity…”Greenberg’s argument is that since modernist art emancipated itself from the demands of society, the history of forms has been self-referential and has evolved independently of the history of events.’’

’’Similarly narrative (a literary device), figural representation, and certainly illusionism were strictly proscribed.’’

’’The school of young critics surrounding Greenberg included, most notably: Michael Fried, Rosalind Krauss, Kenworth Moffett, and Walter Darby Bannard.’’ ^[10]

’’By around 1970 the art and theory on which Greenberg and Fried had built their reputations began to look dated and unconvincing as their claims of historical inevitability.’’ ^[11]

Argument for the deletion of Lyrical Abstraction, Tachisme.

The movement emphasized expressive paint handling. It evolved in direct response to American action painting.

’’Tâche means a splash or stain, and as this implies, the movement emphasized expressive paint handling…they too seemed more concerned with the beauty of the surface- or in the case of Mathieu, the act of painting as a performance-than with the metaphysics of l’informe." ^[12]

For clarification according to the Webster’s New World Dictionary:

Expression: a picturing, representing, or symbolizing in art, music etc.

Expressionism: an early 20th century movement in art, literature, and drama, characterized by distortion of reality and the use of symbols, stylization, etc.

According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists, 2003 © Ian Chilvers, the definition of Lyrical Abstraction:

‘’lyrical abstraction

A rather vague term, used differently by different writers, applied to a type of expressive but non-violent abstract painting flourishing particularly in the 1950s and 1960s; the term was evidently coined by the French painter George Mathieu who spoke of ‘abstraction lyrique’ in 1947. European critics often use it more or less as a synonym for Art informel or Tachisme; Americans sometimes see it as an emasculated version of Abstract Expressionism. To some writers it implies particularly a lush and sumptuous use of colour.’’

The above references provide the justification to delete Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism.

I hope this argument will clarify my intention to serve the public with well researched, clearly referenced articles reflecting a Neutral Point of View. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

I have removed the images from the above, which are non-free and should only be used in articles. You've been requested already to conduct the discussion on the relevant article talk page and not here. There is no prohibition with the same or similar text being used in different articles if it is relevant to them. It is completely irrelevant as to whether Lyrical Abstraction should or should not be included in the article Expressionism. There has been no expression of opposition by threatening to block you. That was a warning for edit-warring: see WP:3RR, which is a standard warning for any editor continually reverting material. Ty 02:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism with explanation,

"Lyrical abstractions are deleted since they had no formal or representational elements,"

and added the definition of Expressionism. According to you:

"It is completely irrelevant as to whether Lyrical Abstraction should or should not be included in the article Expressionism."

Still the added definition was deleted (which I added again) and Lyrical Abstraction was reverted without explanation but a threat, "stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Each case should be looked at individually with the intention to reach consensus which is the power of Wikipedia. (Salmon1 (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

The text of the warning is not mine, but the standard one agreed by editors at Template:Uw-3rr. The aim of it is to prevent editors from being blocked because of a violation of WP:3RR, which you were on the edge of. I did not revert without an explanation. My edit summary of 22:57, 21 August 2009 said, "Restore Lyrical Abstraction, remove quote - see talk page",[15]. One minute after this, I posted a rationale on the talk page.[16] You did not attempt to discuss it, but reverted my edit on the article at 23:27, 21 August 2009 with the edit summary, "Replenished the stricken text including the author and citation. Deleted Lyrical abstraction on that basis".[17] You then posted the edit summary, which does not address any of the points I made, on the talk page.[18] I reverted your article edit at 23:40, 21 August 2009 with the edit summary, "Discuss on talk page before reverting".[19] At 23:41, I posted on the talk page, "I've already pointed out that the quote is in the wrong section and is out of place there. You have not taken any notice of the points made above or answered them. Don't just revert. It's edit-warring."[20] It is therefore quite incorrect of you to say to me that you were "reverted without explanation but a threat". The WP:3RR warning was not given until 00:13, 22 August 2009.[21] Ty 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I found that the problem not only relates to the article Expressionism but more widely to many other articles. There is the use of the same text with repeated images by one single artist. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The proper understanding of the scope demands a fuller representation of the members of the group with verifiable references. Wikipedia:NPOV which is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. I hope we can make a difference in civility and the refinement of individual articles. (Salmon1 (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

I have already pointed out that there is no prohibition against using the same text in different articles, if it is relevant. Please read posts that reply to you. WP:UNDUE applies within an article to the balance of points of view. It is not cross-article, or we would be in big trouble, as many lightweight subjects are covered on wiki in far more depth than many historically significant ones. If you think an image is not the right one for an article, then you should address it in the article or on the article talk page. If you think the references are inadequate, then you can add more, tag individual statements with {{fact}} (to be used with discretion, where a statement is in doubt) or, if merited, the whole article with {{refimprove}}, {{nofootnotes}} etc, as appropriate. Please bear in mind that most articles are probably "in progress" and improvements are always welcome. However, you are raising concerns with a mere six articles (excluding Expressionism), which does not seem to be a large number for (a short text about) an art movement to be included in, so I don't see any major problem. My concern would be that there is not enough about Lyrical Abstraction rather than there being too much. Ty 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The above reply was given the description: NPOV:punct^[13] It is described the following way in wikipedia :

”Punct is a connection game…The trick is to place your pieces in such way that your opponent will expect you to do something different from what you really have in mind. As such, Punct is not only about making a connection but also about misleading your opponent!”

NPOV is not punct game. The fact still remains that Wikipedia is the number one encyclopedia on the Web because of the rule of NPOV. I have no interest to participate in punct. I’ll continue to edit in Wikipedia.(Salmon1 (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

Statue of Freedom

FYI - I've tagged the article with your project. APK that's not my name 22:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

'Leonardo's' paintings

See the list in this category. We have The Last Supper (Leonardo) and two others using his first name, two using his full name, most, including less well known paintings, without any name. I certainly think that we shouldn't be using his first name (and those that do seem to use it within the article as well, which I think should be changed. Any comments? Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't get worked up about it. Using Leonardo is certainly better than using "Da Vinci" by itself (it is not a surname), and is correct within the text. Some of the titles are very common subjects that need disaming Adoration of the Magi etc, and some don't - others are debatable. The "Leonardo" titles could be moved to the full name, some, like Portrait of a Musician should be disamed. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style for more on this. Johnbod (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC 4

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans image deletion

I am unable to find a source for File:Campbell's Soup with Can Opener.jpg, which means that this file is likely be be WP:CSDed next week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

5th news item on Artnet June 2000 + thumbnail. Enlarged image on Artnet. Ty 14:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Great work Ty...Modernist (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sharks...

This may seem a very odd question (and sorry it's a little off-topic, I just know you all know your art!), but, other than Watson and the Shark, does anyone know of any works where sharks feature prominently? I'm working on Portal:Sharks, and would love for some more high culture articles in the "sharks in culture" list, and any high quality pictures for the selected picture would be fantastic! J Milburn (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey JMilburn try these:The Gulf Stream (painting) by Winslow Homer comes to mind and of course Damien Hirst's The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living. This link [22] is ok too...Modernist (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just in case any of these have escaped you and are of any use: List_of_fictional_fish#Sharks, Category:Films about sharks, Category:Fictional sharks. And while we're on the subject.[23] Ty 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are amazing...Modernist (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we have that guy in Oxford with a shark coming out of his roof? Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Headington Shark. Ty 04:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's insane...Modernist (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Extremely powerful that it was "erected on the 41st anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki." Bus stop (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all this was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for- I love Still life with Shark on the Bosporus; it's such a shame we have no articles on many of those works. J Milburn (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:50, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting to set this up.[24] Please amend if anything is not correct. Ty 00:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is now working. Watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Article alerts to see when it is updated. The material on that page is currently transcluded onto the main project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Article_alerts, but that can be prevented (I think), if it's felt that the info overloads the main page. See Wikipedia:Article alerts for more details. Ty 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist it

I've removed the transclusion onto the main project page. Alerts can be found at:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Article alerts

Watchlist that page to see when it updates. Ty 08:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Roy Lichtenstein

This editor ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk · contribs) is loading a bogus self-made image onto the Roy Lichtenstein article. I've reverted it twice and left remarks at the talk page, here [25] and would appreciate others input...Modernist (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page. Ty 01:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Left hand images under level 3 headers or lower

These are no longer barred by MOS.[26] See preceding discussion,[27] with recommendation for layout to work on screens down to 800 pixels wide and up to 2000 pixels wide. Ty 05:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles within VA scope

Not sure about Papier-mâché and Irezumi. I think not for the first and we could probably shed the second. Ty 13:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reassess the article Peter_Saville_(artist)

Peter_Saville_(artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I recently modified a bit of the Peter Saville article, and then noticed it was assessed as 'stub-class', which by comparison to some other random articles seemed undue. I therefore request a reassessment to 'start-class' or even 'C-class' (I can't place an internal LINK to the Wikipedia definition of each of the classes here, there seems to be none existing... So I refer to the more general page named Assessment).

I elected to place this very same text on a page of each of 5 projects (Graphic design, Visual arts, ~~Albums~~, Biography, Business) that COULD be involved in the process of evaluating the article (it took me about an HOUR to find out about the relevant projects and their assessment particulars by process of going through the whole categories/portals/projects structure of Wikipedia). This in itself reflects on the poor inter-organization of WikiProjects: who SHOULD be responsible to assess the said article? HOW should I find out as a casual user? What if EACH of the 5 projects decide to assess it at the same time (I'm looking forward to THAT)? WHY are the Business and Visual Arts projects solely interested in 'Unassessed' articles but not in reassessment? ~~By the way the Graphic design project does not seem to KNOW that it is part of the larger Visual arts project (at least it does not say so on its own web page)...~~ (seems I goofed here) I find it all a bit comical, to say the least. (Note- yes, you will ask: 'dumb ass', why don't YOU (me) assess the damn article if you are so intelligent and blabla...; well damzels and sirs, I won't in this case; I feel I don't know enough about the rating system yet, and besides I don't know enough about Peter Saville as a subject.) Thanks, --Alainr345 (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you want your money back? Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That was very funny! Ty 09:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not, but I'm replacing Albums (they don't WANT it) by England, Peter Saville is still English right? --Alainr345 (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's now start class. These gradings are only approximate there to help further organisation of editing and other tasks. Ty 09:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The Business project all seem to have been made redundant. Biography will get round to it. Some people only rate for projects they belong to, others for all. It wasn't tagged by us, though I don't suppose we would actually reject it. We have ?0,000 articles and ? or ?0 active editors who do bursts of assessing, so the thing does not run like clockwork. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK let me recap here, I'm new to this business:

1- I requested an assessment on said article to 5 WikiProjects. I did not take a look at the talk page before, should I had done so I would have seen that the page was 'owned' by the Biography project.

2- But it turns out my mistake had a different effect: Biography did not react, but somebody else did (see below).

3- Business is out of the picture and England well I guess there mostly interested in the Queen...

4- So that leaves Visual Arts and Graphic Design and that's where it gets tricky: a couple of Visual Arts guys got into the action and the talk page of said article was tagged as a Graphic Design thing, even though these guys are NOT part of the Graphic Design WikiProject!!?? Wow, am I dreaming or what...

5- The talk page was also tagged as 'start-class' (thanks guys) ~~but the page itself REMAINS a 'stub-class'. Mumbo jumbo now I'm totally lost!...~~ (sorry I goofed) --Alainr345 (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article is it referred to as a STUB. Currently it is a Start class article...Modernist (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I think you may be seeing these ratings as more important than they really are. They affect very little, apart from helping editors to see what needs improving. Also, there is far more work that needs to be done on wikipedia than there are editors to do it, so a lot of things are incomplete. It is a volunteer project. WikiProjects aren't sealed units. They are a useful focus for people of like interests. There is a lot to learn on wiki, so feel free to ask. Ty 10:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to increase the default thumb size of images

Finally! Its at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Supports_and_opposes. I've been a big supporter of this, which was last extensively discussed in 2008 I think. I'm also curious as to what settings people use, & if anyone was unaware they could set preferences. I've set 300px as default, what about other people? Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Advertising by Alexander Gray Associates

Cleanup is required across a number of articles. Details are at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Advertising by Alexander Gray Associates. Uncle G (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Gray Associates are a gallery & they put up several of their artists in 2007. You've obviously not experienced gallerist prose before! The ones I looked at seemed notable, & had links to works in MOMA etc. The articles also seemed part copyvio from the gallery bios; perhaps there was more before. I haven't done much to them. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod. I am familiar with a couple of those articles, and some of those artists like Jo Baer are notable. When I have time I'll reread them, and give it some work and time...Modernist (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See Alexandergray (talk · contribs). Ty 01:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Anna Richards Brewster

Lovely work by an American painter, born 1870. Deserves an article. See http://www.arbrewster.com/ -- an article would link to A New Alice in the Old Wonderland which she illustrated for her mother in 1895. -- Evertype·✆ 08:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination

I've made an AfD nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Da Vinci: Flights of the Mind – a biography of Leonardo. I'd be grateful for your opinions. Ham 16:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism or paraphrasing?

The text here The Allegory of Faith taken from here:http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/verm/ho_32.100.18.htm [28]seems far too close for comfort to me. See the discussion here: [29] others opinions appreciated. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Image uploading rules

Can someone clarify the rules regarding images?

Getting public domain images. WP:Image use policy says "in the United States, reproductions of two-dimensional artwork which is in the public domain because of age do not generate a new copyright." Does this mean that any plain, straight-on photograph of any artwork created before 1923 can safely be uploaded? Does this include scans made from books, photos taken in museums and art galleries, and images found anywhere online, including museum and art gallery sites?

Getting fair use images. Assuming one has valid fair use criteria, can one obtain images from the same sources mentioned above: scans made from books, photos taken in museums and art galleries, and images found anywhere online, including museum and art gallery sites?

Is there also some kind of rule regarding the death date of the artist?

Any other simplified rules regarding uploading images would be appreciated. 66.92.38.202 (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pending a better informed answer, for really old stuff this is the case, at least in the US - Corel v Bridgeman. You can't copyright the photo of a 2D object there, but the subject of the photo - eg a painting- may still be in copyright. So a photo of a Rembrandt painting from any source is ok. After that it gets complicated. The 1923 rule relates to works published before then - some will have existed but not been published, which for a painting essentially means exhibited publically or reproduced in a magazine or book etc. Then you get the year of death +50 or (EU etc) 70 years. No doubt there is a commons page explaining it somewhere. A valid fair use rationale over-rides the copyright, but the way the image is used will be restricted. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Will Barnet

Attention is needed at Will Barnet, where an editor and several allies or sockpuppets are determined to alert the world that Barnet's success was gained by stealing ideas from said editor. Ewulp (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame, he just turned 98 and I guess if you live that long you get people doggin' your trail...Modernist (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Page full protected in the short term and the editor warned re WP:BLP. Ty 16:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Image irregularities

Problems with the images atop Howard Pyle and J.C. Leyendecker; they are over-enlarged, and I don't know how to correct them. I wonder if someone has messed with images at other illustrators' bios as well. Any help would be appreciated. JNW (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

--Scriberius (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Image sizes....now why didn't I think of that? JNW (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone has seriously messed up the infobox artist template, so unless image size is indicated the images are outsized. The Template needs fixing....Modernist (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying this and correcting a number of pages. It appears that someone has changed the template recently.... Perhaps this is where it went awry [30]. JNW (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the last two edits to the template and I think the problem is fixed....Modernist (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Image problem at The Disasters of War re: the Dali, which is also eluding my comprehension (hmmm). When I try to restore the image, it appears just fine in the edit preview, but the corrections don't take when I press 'save'. I don't know if it's a related issue, or an anomaly, but a helpful hand would be appreciated again. JNW (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't sort that either, althoiugh it might just be a cache problem for us. Or there is a limit on caption & alt text length or number of links, which this busts. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a shot. Perhaps Modernist or Tyrenius can figure this out. JNW (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted back to a stable version with consensus. See Template_talk:Infobox_artist#Recent_changes. Please make sure this template is watchlisted and join in the discussions there, and revert any unilateral template changes. Ty 19:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of images

Outside views would be helpful at Talk:Stella_Vine#An_Encyclopedia.2C_not_a_Magazine concerning the reduction of (free) images in the article from 19 to 4.[31] I have reverted the change. Ty 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Secret Life of Salvador Dalí

Any outside perspectives on The Secret Life of Salvador Dalí would be great. I just created the article and I'm sure I made some mistakes and neglected some things that another editor would see. Thanks! The Squicks (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing criteria

There is a growing disagreement here: [32]concerning changing the criteria at list of Contemporary artists, comments appreciated...Modernist (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Non free images in galleries

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Non-free_images_in_a_gallery, from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Reverted_change_on_galleries after reversion of a recent change.[33] Ty 00:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New project for Museums, Libraries and Archives

Following a discussion at WP:COI about museums/libraries/archives, we thought it would be good to have a place to discuss issues relevant to, and give specific advice for, professionals in the cultural sector working on Wikipedia. This will probably become WP:MLA and it is currently under development here: User:Witty_lama/Sandbox (and equivalent talkpage). It's not supposed to be a policy page itself, but rather a "one stop shop" for professional archivists, museum professionals, librarians to come and see all the policies/guidelines that apply to them and get advice and assistance. That said, we just started discussing a possible subject specific notability criteria for MLAs as well. UncleDouggie (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Image size

Looks like the default size for images is moving from 180px to 220px [34]...Modernist (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for help with (soon to be) featured list candidate

I am preparing List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) for WP:FLC and am looking for people with an interest in Japanese painting to help in this process. Besides boring work (conversion of units, alt-text of pictures,...), the lead section of the list needs to be improved and extended. Most logical would be a historical introduction as in (the already featured) List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures), but any other ideas are welcome. bamse (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The boring part is finished. Only the lead section needs to be expanded. For that I am looking for resources on the history of Japanese painting from the Nara to Edo period (8th to 19th century). Since I don't have access to libraries or subscription-required journals, I am looking for reliable online sources, or maybe somebody could send me an electronic version of an article or scan of a book? It does not need to be very detailed as I need it only for the lead section (four paragraphs covering more than 1000 years of history) of a list article. bamse (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style

This has now been around a good while, & seems pretty stable, but remains a draft proposal. Unless there are any objections in the next few days, I will remove the draft header & make it "official". Of course much could still be added. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone identify these mysterious (?) art pieces?

Hi, I uploaded some images of art works exhibited at Victoria and Albert Museum. I can only detect very a few of them by searching in VAM website, but I don't know how to call the listed objects in the gallery in English.

Your help would be highly appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 15:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Some eyes at List of Canadian artists

I'm not in the mood for an edit war, but it seems an IP is determined to start one. This is all around a certain artist, Terry Ananny. Her remarkable story of long-term abuse (she's known as The Terry Ananny Spammer--there's some notability for you!) can be found here. In short, it has long been decided that she is not notable by Wikipedia standards, but every couple of months she pops in and puts her name in the List of Canadian artists and List of Canadian painters, plus a few others. I've reverted twice, plus a bot has reverted her "reference" from youtube. I'm frankly tired of this. freshacconci talktalk 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Canadian artists semi-protected, and List of Canadian painters watchlisted. Spamming seems to have stopped for now. Ty 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Canadian painters semi-protected as well, as spamming has started up there now. Ty 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Carl Heinrich Bloch spamming

Please keep an eye on ReaverFlash (talk • contribs, and perhaps others, who are in effect spamming the very horrible paintings of the 19th century Danish painter Bloch, who is now apparently very highly thought of by LDS (Mormon) people. Flash is also making a number of picture changes, no doubt with good intentions, to the lead images of other religious articles, previously illustrated with "blurry" paintings. If it isn't Bloch, its Guido Reni or Murillo. Some are improvements, others not Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Nolan

In this article some of the reference notes are more like lectures, and I suspect there is some POV going on with the disputes mentioned, using the fact that the information is in the notes not the article as a sort of Trojan Horse. Would someone who knows more about this than I do put any relevant text into the body of tha article and reduce the notes to the refereces to sources that I think they are meant to be? Britmax (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Julia Trops

I nominated this for speedy deletion, which was declined. It is an autobiography without any sources, heavy on the original research, and I'm unclear re: notability. Thoughts welcome. JNW (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to justify wiki requirements for notability is apparent in the article, nor in a quick trawl of google. I suggest AfD. (Speedy has a stricter requirement for deletion.) Ty 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Measuring standards

How is the height of a statue measured for official statistical purposes: is the base included? See for example Iron Man (statue) listed as the third tallest statue in the United States, while the guy on top is only 36 feet tall. He would be last on this list (if included at all) if the base is omitted.kelapstick (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should defer to what reliable sources say. Have you tried checking the Guiness :) book of world records or other sources that might discuss the issue or include a ranking of statues? Perhaps the geniuses at the Wikipedia:content noticeboard might have an answer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

advice for the cultural sector

following up on a message left here a week or so ago, the new page giving specialised advice to professionals from the cultural sector (including those in the visual arts e.g. public art-gallery curators) page is now published at Wikipedia:advice for the cultural sector (aka WP:GLAM. Feel free to comment. It refers out to this wikiproject several times so some people may come across. Perhaps you might like to refer out to it from here too? Sincerely Witty Lama 15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The article looks good. I don't see that it even needs an overhaul...Modernist (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page. FAR now closed down, but I have another source & will give it a look over. Johnbod (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Crop art

Numerous edits adding references to crop art, and one practitioner in particular, [35], sometimes inappropriate, sometimes appears promotional; good example of both is [36]. I've reverted some, and would appreciate more input. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I had run into this also and have advised the editor (who I am sure is editing in good faith) to create an article on Stan Herd who seems clearly to meet our criteria of notability. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Eric Van Hove

Does anyone here think there's anything articleworthy to Eric Van Hove? I'd never heard of him, but a link led me to his article, which I thought full of flimflam (sourcing to himself), unsupported statements, and bullshit. After my runthrough it's not quite as awful as it was, but my attempts to read the few putatively independent sources that are quoted are thwarted as my eyes glaze over in the face of congealed gradstudent-speak about Art (capital "A"). -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art!

I just came across this new Wikiproject which appears to be a bunch of students from Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis who are adding articles about the public art on the campus. They are doing OK but might benefit from some assistance and a few expert eyes on the output. I've left them a message on their talk page welcoming them and giving them a few style tips but I'm no art expert so can't help them with how to approach the content. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 10:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Nancy, for posting this here. We had listed this project as a parent project, but I think forgot to leave a note here about our project.

We'd love to have more folks opinions and help. However, for the sake of the project, I wonder if everyone would be willing to wait until after today at 6pm to make significant edits to the pages. As part of their final project the students are to have 2 articles each finished, thus completing a first-ever survey of the IUPUI campus collection. We're really excited about this project and the potential it has. It seems that many of these new Wikipedians have had mixed results interacting with editors--some have been very kind and helpful (like Nancy!) while others have not.

Kind regards -- --Richard McCoy (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Books

Anyone interested in trying to help put together a few books on the visual arts? Given that it is my primary area of activity, I would think some books on religious art in particular would be very useful, but books on sculpture, painting, etc., if they don't exist already, would doubtless be very useful as well. If (that's a very big if in this case, as I've never done any myself) I could be of any assistance in this regard, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Black

please make a shades of black page, like the other shades of color pages? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.244.2 (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Graham Ovenden

Given the guy's current controversy, could someone keep an eye on this article? There's a lot of partisan-looking activity going on there. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted the last anon edit which inserted BLP vios not sustained by the ref, and semi protected the article for a month. This may need to be extended if trouble continues. This definitely needs watchlisting. There seems to be a trial date fixed for April. Ty 01:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Canadian artists

Recurring issue, persistent promotion by/of non-notable artist. JNW (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected indef. Ty 06:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia needs your help

Hello there, I am from the Simple English Wikipedia. That Wikipedia wants to create an encyclopedia that uses English, which should be easier to understand than this Wikipedia. Because of various issues, we do have a bad image here. The reason I write this message is that we are lacking many articles about painters which most would consider "mainstream" modern-day.At the time of this writing, we do not have much of an article about Impressionism, and we lack Degas, Cézanne and Renoir. We currently are a small community, and lack the people with the respective skills. I would therefore like to invite anyone to help us. Sorry, if I posted this to the wrong place. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic textures?

Hi all. I see both Sculpture and Outline of sculpture mention "dynamic textures", but I'm not sure what that is. As it stands, "dynamic" and "texture" are separately linked, but I need to fix the link to disambig page Dynamic. Does anyone know what these articles should really point to? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 02:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

German art

Will someone please take a look at German art just before the Third Reich and the associated talk page? This looks like it is gearing up to be a long and pointless argument. Lithoderm 23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Drawings to replace photos?

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Does a drawing of a person, or the fact that one might be drawn, mean all non-free photos of people are thus replaceable?. Ty 01:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Jereme K on Shadowgraphy

I'd like my article Shadowgraphy to be reviewed please for classification.

JeremeK (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Naval/Tudor period DYK opportunity

There's a planned press release from at least two Wikimedia chapters (UK and Sweden) for an upcoming image donation from the Mary Rose Trust scheduled for January 3. It's going to be accompanied by a major update of the articles on the Mary Rose and the Anthony Roll which are going to be nominated as DYK for the day of the press release. If anyone here is interested in joining in to make that day into a naval/Tudor period theme day for DYK, check out Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Scheduling a DYK date.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox artist

FYI, the signature field was added back to the template. Best regards. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Added back by Connormah. I reverted. There is as yet no consensus it should be included. That needs to be discussed on the talk page. Ty 01:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_artist#Signature. Ty 22:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Signature

I'd appreciate other editors input and opinions concerning artist signatures in articles, please weigh in here: [37] at Talk:Vincent van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

See also Template_talk:Infobox_artist#Signature Parameter. Best Regards. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidate request for reviewers

Hello! I re-nominated List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) at FLC. A previous nomination failed (with one "support" and no "oppose") because of a lack of reviews. All comments of that nomination have been addressed and the list has virtually not changed since then. I am looking for reviewers to comment on the list with regard to the featured list criteria. Pleas leave your comments/votes here. Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It just got featured. No reviewers necessary anymore.bamse (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Impressionism

I am surprised that when ever impressionism is mentioned it is attributed solely to Paris as the cradle of this style of painting. If one were to do a little more study I am convinced that in fact impressionism as it evolved in Paris was probably largely influenced or inspired by the paintings of Turner and his impact on painting with his studies of the effects of light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.71.32 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does mention precursors to the movement, including Turner as one of the artists whose work displays impressionistic characteristics, and perhaps a sourced reference can be made to his more direct influence. But the article, while noting the broader application of the term, is correct in describing the movement that was comprised of several French artists, first given a name by Louis Leroy in 1874. JNW (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No one disputes that there were important influences on the artists that formed the Impressionist movement in Paris. Besides Turner, John Constable and the Fountainbleu landscape painters connected to the Barbizon school; there was Eugene Boudin who advocated plein air painting to the teen-age Claude Monet, Gustave Courbet who became a role-model and several more artists, especially Édouard Manet who made an enormous impact on the young painters who were to become known as the Impressionists in the Salon des Refusés of 1863...Modernist (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Airbrush is the same as Aerograph although this is the original brandname of Devillbiss. An airbrush is best suited to very detailed fine spray work such as graphics; it works from a small compressor; the flow rate of paint is very small so it is not suited to painting large areas. For larger areas where a litre of paint or less is to be applied, HVLP is usually used. This is an air spray gun in which a High Volume of Low Pressure air is used; it is similar to the older type of "conventional" air spray gun that is relatively inefficient in transferring the paint to the work (less than 30% transfer). HVLP equipment is often used by joiners and shopfitters, and can be powered from a compressor having at least 12 cfm of delivered air, or from a mutli-stage air turbine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dundas (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

LQQking for co-author

I have an outline ready for the topic of freelance design; which I was surprised isn't already up. I am looking for other professional in the field of design (graphic, web, illustration, photography) who know of the subject first-hand OR someone who is simply a great copy-editor and can help with formatting, etc. It's going to be a substantial amount of information. If you're interested, please drop me a line here. I watch this page daily and will definately see your message. Hope to hear from someone out there! Thanks! --Neon Sky (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BranchesofVisualArt

Template:BranchesofVisualArt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a fundamental template. I don't know why it wasn't in use, but I've just added it to the 9 articles linked on it. Can you now withdraw the nom? Ty 19:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Roll peer review

I've put up Anthony Roll for a peer review. The Roll is a list of warships, but also contains a series of rather unique illustrations that are discussed at some length in the article. If anyone from the project would be interested in looking at them, I'd be glad to listen to your comments and recommendations.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Kelley (artist)

Reported at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mike_Kelley_(artist). Ty 12:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Art history

There is a discussion here about the Art history article. Some input would be welcome. freshacconci talktalk 13:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Commented there [38], The article needs a lot of references...Modernist (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kieron Williamson

I stumbled on this article while patrolling new pages and would have nominated it for Speedy delete as it failed to assert notability ("six year old, talented artist... yeah, sure he is...")

A quick knock around with Google and it's apparent he's somewhat different from the other 145 six-year-old artists whose biographies have been deleted this week and is very notable indeed.

I'm not the best equipped to improve this article and the newspaper articles I've found, while being reliable sources for the media interest he's attracted, might not be particularly objective in terms of describing the art. I'd appreciate it if someone else could add to the article. Thanks Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nora Simpson paintings (Part A)

Does anyone have any information regarding this artist? I have come across 8 small paintings w/her name and address (U.K.) typed and glued on the back of the paintings. Skinner's auction house of Boston did not seem to think they could auction them. Any ideas of value and market would be greatly appreciated. I'm thinking Australia would be a good marketing location. Thank you in advance. contact: Donna foorcoolcats15@msn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.19.156 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an article on a painter named Nora Simpson. Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge articles?

I noticed that there are two articles that deal with the same subject: Cosmati and Cosmatesque. It might be best to merge them. Commons seems to have enough to make an image gallery, which I could add later. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Set up a merge proposal then, but I don't think they cover the same subject. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should I try if I do not see support for a merge? As I said there are enough images on Commons for an image gallery, but I am disinclined to do it twice. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

^ Marilyn Stokstad, Art History, Volume II, Revised edition. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall ©1999.) ISBN 0130828726 9780130828729 p.1025
^ Movers and Shakers, New York, "Leaving C&M", by Sarah Douglas, Art and Auction, March 2007, V.XXXNo7.
^ Movers and Shakers, New York, "Leaving C&M", by Sarah Douglas, Art and Auction, March 2007, V.XXXNo7.
^ Movers and Shakers, New York, "Leaving C&M", by Sarah Douglas, Art and Auction, March 2007, V.XXXNo7.
^ Morgan, Robert C.. Landfield's Illuminations. Exhibition Catalogue: Ronnie Landfield: Paintings From Five Decades. The Butler Institute of American Art. ISBN 1-882790-50-2
^ Ashton, Dore. "Young Abstract Painters: Right On!". Arts vol. 44, no. 4, February, 1970. 31-35
^ Aldrich, Larry. Young Lyrical Painters. Art in America, vol. 57, no. 6, November-December 1969. 104-113
^ Aldrich, Larry. Young Lyrical Painters, Art in America, v.57, n6, November-December 1969, pp.104-113.
^ Jonathan Fineberg, ‘’Art since 40 : strategies of being’’ (London : King, 2000.) p.154
^ Jonathan Fineberg, ‘’Art since 40 : strategies of being’’ (London : King, 2000.) p.155
^ Jonathan Fineberg, ‘’Art since 40 : strategies of being’’ (London : King, 2000.) p.150
^ An abstract game.

[1] Marilyn Stokstad, Art History, Volume II, Revised edition. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall ©1999.) ISBN 0130828726 9780130828729 p.1025

[Shakers,_New_York_2007-2] Movers and Shakers, New York, "Leaving C&M", by Sarah Douglas, Art and Auction, March 2007, V.XXXNo7.

[sxdvrz-3] Movers and Shakers, New York, "Leaving C&M", by Sarah Douglas, Art and Auction, March 2007, V.XXXNo7.

[4] Movers and Shakers, New York, "Leaving C&M", by Sarah Douglas, Art and Auction, March 2007, V.XXXNo7.

[5] Morgan, Robert C.. Landfield's Illuminations. Exhibition Catalogue: Ronnie Landfield: Paintings From Five Decades. The Butler Institute of American Art. ISBN 1-882790-50-2

[6] Ashton, Dore. "Young Abstract Painters: Right On!". Arts vol. 44, no. 4, February, 1970. 31-35

[7] Aldrich, Larry. Young Lyrical Painters. Art in America, vol. 57, no. 6, November-December 1969. 104-113

[8] Aldrich, Larry. Young Lyrical Painters, Art in America, v.57, n6, November-December 1969, pp.104-113.

[9] ‘’Art History’’ (New York, N.Y. : Abbeville Press, ©1993.) ISBN 1558596054 p. 413

[10] Jonathan Fineberg, ‘’Art since 40 : strategies of being’’ (London : King, 2000.) p.154

[11] Jonathan Fineberg, ‘’Art since 40 : strategies of being’’ (London : King, 2000.) p.155

[12] Jonathan Fineberg, ‘’Art since 40 : strategies of being’’ (London : King, 2000.) p.150

[13] An abstract game.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]