Talk:Expressionism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Subjective art

--all art is expressionist. all art projects a subjective view of the world, at the very least as the artist necessarily experiences the world subjectively

the article should be changed therefore :)

The last paragraph of this article needs some serious clean-up, and the article as a whole could use some stylistic editing. I'll get around to it eventually, but if anybody else wants to give it a go they should feel free. Junjk 13:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Modernism template

I've added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kandinsky ?

Why is this article is illustrated with "On White II" by Kandinsky?

Isn't that painting better considered a pure abstraction -- or an arrangement of geometric shapes-- rather than exhibiting a "tendency of an artist to distort reality for emotional effect" ?

Can anyone tell us which piece of reality was being distorted ? The title ( "On White II" )would suggest that if the painting is supposed to refer to some thing real, that thing is itself as an arrangement of colored shapes on a white background.

Even the Wikipedia entry for Kandinsky does not mention expressionism except as among the relevant categories listed at the very end.

Can't we put "The Scream" -- or something else like it -- at the beginning of this page ?

Mountshang 00:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The scream here sounds good to me, its usually associated with expressionism. just did it. Kandinsky's should probably be removed. Some images of Max Beckmann's or other German expressionists would probably be a good idea. If youre looking for images for this article, theres several hundred in the expressionist category on wikimedia commons [1] Cfitzart 03:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks -- unless someone else feels strongly about it, both the Kandinsky and the Franz ought to be removed from a page about Expressionsim -- or --- we might change the definition so it does not include "distorting reality". If that were left out -- then we could divide expressionism into two parts: figurative and abstract.

Meanwhile -- sculpture should be added to the list of expressionisms -- though I don't yet know of pictures that are in the public domain. Mountshang 22:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

images

Shouldn't the photos be on the right, coding isn't correct. anyone know how to do it? Artybrad 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that. I can't make it work without exactly the parameters I used to set it up, so I just rolled it back and will forget about the fancy stacking box for now. --sparkit^TALK 03:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I havent got time to do it myself, but go to WP:BUNCH and copy and paste example 2, replacing with the images here. LordHarris 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! But I think that might just have the same problem since it's using almost exactly the same div tag as the template I used before. I suspect the problem is just with IE/Windows, but I don't have IE/Windows to test with. Volunteers? --sparkit^TALK 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

-- yo for some reason, this article won't print, at least into a PDF file. Something is wrong with this article that causes the browser to freeze. Please fix! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.177.88 (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ammending Birth of Tragedy section

I've just taken a shot at rewording the Birth of Tragedy section. It was like this:

In The Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche presented his theory of the ancient dualism between two types of aesthetic experience, namely the Apollonian and the Dionysian; a dualism between a world of the mind, of order, of regularity and polishedness and a world of intoxication and chaos. The Apollonian represented the rationally conceived ideal, whereas the Dionysian represented artistic conception proper, originating from man's subconscious. The analogy with the world of the Greek gods typifies the relationship between these extremes: two godsons, incompatible and yet inseparable. According to Nietzsche, both elements are present in any work of art. The basic characteristics of expressionism are Dionysian: bold colors, distorted forms, two-dimensional, without perspective, and based on feelings (the child) rather than rational thought (the adult).

There are obvious problems here; it confuses N's argument. The article was wanting to utilize his opposition between Dionysian and Reason, but this is Dionysos vs. Socrates, which he develops towards the end of the book, not Dionysos vs. Apollo. Apollo was the god of Dreams; the Oracle at Delphi sat astride intoxicating vapours! Not Reason, but Form, Identity, Tranquility. In pop culture terms, Apollo is marijuana and Dionysos is ecstasy (though not really, of course). Neither are rational. Tragedy is the union of these two principles; it's Euripides that introduces realism and Socrates that, in N's opinion, destroys tragedy. DionysosProteus 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Helli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.87.26 (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Expressionist drama

Why is there no mention of Bertolt Brecht under Expressionist theatre?Lithoderm (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If it should be there, you can add it, preferably referenced. Ty 23:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've checked this out and believe that I was mistaken. The strongest connection I can find in library sources say that his Distancing effect is similar to the goals of Neue Sachlichkeit, which is little more than an analogy. Lithoderm (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Art movements vs. Category:Expressionism

Category:Expressionism is itself a category within Category:Art movements. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

deleted Arshile Gorky since he died in 1948

The statement: Abstract Expressionism, of the 1950s represented primarily of American artist such as Arshile Gorky can be confusing. It is perceived that he was the father of American Abstract Expressionism of the 1950s. The name could be added with clarification. (Salmon1 (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

deleted Lyrical Abstraction

Lyrical abstractions are deleted since they had no formal or representational elements. (Salmon1 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

I've restored Lyrical Abstraction. It was removed with the edit summary: "Lyrical abstractions are deleted since they had no formal or representational elements". This argument is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR: 1) a statement is made (the quote below), 2) there is then a personal interpretation, 3) the two are combined to form a novel conclusion not based on a source. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists defines Lyrical Abstraction as "a type of expressive ... painting".[2]

I've removed this quote:

"Expressionism (is) the manipulation of formal or representational elements to convey intense feelings." <ref>Marilyn Stokstad, [http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/oclc/42451028&referer=brief_results ''Art History, Volume II,''] Revised edition. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall ©1999.) ISBN 0130828726 9780130828729 p.1025</ref>

It is gratuitous at the head of the section "Expressionist groups in painting". It has no context, nor is the author of it given. There is an earlier section where definitions are included, and it should be integrated there, if needed. Furthermore, bold should not be used in the main article text.

Ty 22:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Replenished the stricken text including the author and citation. Deleted Lyrical abstraction on that basis. (Salmon1 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

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. See WP:BRD. Ty 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have asked at WP:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Expressionism for the input of other editors here. Ty 23:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please revert the deleted response that I made to you earlier, The fact still remains that Lyrical abstraction is placed in a great number of articles. In this article it has no place based on the well-researched citations and numerous cited examples. Expressionism is not synonymous with the word expressing. It is my intention to be accurate and to serve the public. (Salmon1 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

No response from you has been deleted. If you made such a response and it is not here, then it was not saved properly. There is no limit to the number of articles that Lyrical Abstraction can be placed in, if it is relevant. If "expressive painting" is not Expressionism, what would you categorise it as? You have deleted this referenced material without an explanation:

Lyrical Abstraction, Tachisme<ref>Flight lyric, Paris 1945-1956, texts Patrick-Gilles Persin, Michel and Pierre Descargues Ragon, Musée du Luxembourg, Paris and Skira, Milan, 2006, 280 p. ISBN 8876246797.</ref>

Please state the problem you have with the reference. Ty 00:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil request. The response remains the same: According to Marilyn Stokstad, the British art historian:

“Expressionism (is) the manipulation of formal or representational elements to convey intense feelings.” In order to produce a valuable article one should choose the most pertinent, well referenced examples. Lyrical abstraction is not referenced as part of Expressionism anywhere by Worldcat.org. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

Ref query

Query on the the book "American Abstract and Figurative Expressionism: Style Is Timely Art Is Timeless: An Illustrated Survey With Artists' Statements, Artwork and Biographies(New York School Press, 2009. ISBN 9780967799421." used to substantiate the text:

artists such as Louise Bourgeois, Hans Burkhardt, Mary Callery, Nicolas Carone, Willem de Kooning, Jackson Pollock, and others [13] that took part in figurative expressionism.[14]

Ty 15:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to your request on my talk page I added the page numbers to the article for complete citation. For Reference number 12: pp. 46-49; pp. 62-65; pp. 70-73; pp. 74-77; pp. 94-97; 262-264 it already existed. For reference number 13: pp.24-27; pp.28-31; pp.32-35; pp.52-53; pp.72-75; pp. 112-115 I added (Salmon1 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

The request was not for page numbers. It was for "the exact quotation from the ref which validates the article text", namely "took part in figurative expressionism". The relevant text from the book is requested to be put on this talk page, which specifically validates that statement in the article for each of the named artists: Louise Bourgeois, Hans Burkhardt, Mary Callery, Nicolas Carone, Willem de Kooning, Jackson Pollock. Ty 02:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to your last request on my talk page I am copying quotations from the book: American Abstract and Figurative Expressionism: Style is Timely Art is Timeless, ISBN 9780967799421

• For Jackson Pollock: :"I don't care for "abstract expressionism" . . . and it's certainly not "nonobjective," and not "nonrepresentational" either. I'm very representational some of the time, and a little all of the time. But when you're painting out of your unconscious, figures are bound to emerge. We're all of us influenced by Freud, I guess. I've been a jungian for a long time . . . painting is a state of being . . . . Painting is self-discovery. Every good artist paints what he is." Jackson Pollock, Statement: from Conversation with Artists, published by Selden Rodman, New York, 1957. Reproduced in Jackson Pollock, by Francis V. O’Connor. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1967, p. 73.
  • This does not validate the statement that Pollock "took part in figurative expressionism", only that he is "very representational some of the time." Ty 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• For Lee Krasner: "Painting, for me, when it really ‘happens’ is as miraculous as any natural phenomenon–as, say, a lettuce leaf. By ‘happens,’ I mean the painting in which the inner aspect of man and his outer aspects interlock. One could go on forever as to whether the paint should be thick or thin, whether to paint the woman or the square, hard-edge or soft, but after a while such questions become a bore. They are merely problems in aesthetics, having only to do with the outer man. But the painting I have in mind, painting in which inner and outer are inseparable, transcends technique, transcends subject and moves into the realm of the inevitable–then you have the lettuce leaf." Lee Krasner, Statement: Lee Krasner: A Retrospective, Barbara Rose, The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, and the Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1983. Catalogue, p. 134.
  • This does not validate the statement that Krasner "took part in figurative expressionism". It doesn't mention the term. Ty 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• For Nicolas Carone: "In art, the image is the sensation of an internal experience that does not rely on optics. Image is the spiritual sense of being in the realm of imagination. The image is the elusive form that is revealed by the light of the mind. When the figure goes abstract it deals with the medium that the artist works with. The musician plays the violin which has its own range of music. Painting has the same thing. The plane can be multiplied. When it is analyzed it is a constant addition and subtraction of planes. It is a constant give and take. The content is very important in a painting. You cannot paint an abstract painting without the figurative emotion being involved. It has a narrative but the narrative comes out of the conscious and of the unconscious dialogue. This is a very important factor as the painting develops in scale, dimension and content. Finally, the painting has to breathe. It doesn’t matter whether the painting is abstract or figurative. For me, the painting has to be art and art is abstract." Nicolas Carone, Statement: Interview with the editor. September 4, 2008
  • This does not validate the statement that Carone "took part in figurative expressionism". It doesn't mention the term. Ty 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• For Willem de Kooning: "Spiritually I am wherever my spirit allows me to be, and that is not necessarily in the future. I have no nostalgia, however. If I am confronted with one of those small Mesopotamian figures, I have no nostalgia for it but, instead, I may get into a state of anxiety. Art never seems to me peaceful or pure. I always seem to be wrapped in the melodrama of vulgarity. I do not think of inside or outside—or of art in general—as a situation of comfort. I know there is a terrific idea there somewhere, but whenever I want to get into it, I get a feeling of apathy and want to lie down and go to sleep. Some painters, including myself, do not care what chair they are sitting on. It does not even have to be a comfortable one. They are too nervous to find out where they ought to sit. They do not want to 'sit in style.' Rather, they have found that painting—any kind of painting, any style of painting—to be painting at all, in fact—is a way of living today, a style of living, so to speak. That is where the form of it lies. It is exactly in its uselessness that it is free. Those artists do not want to conform. They only want to be inspired." Willem de Kooning, excerpts from "What Abstract Art Means to Me," Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art (New York), Vol. XVIII, No. 3 (Spring, 1951), p. 7.
  • This does not validate the statement that Kooning "took part in figurative expressionism". It doesn't mention the term. Ty 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There are no quotations given either that validate that Louise Bourgeois, Hans Burkhardt, Mary Callery "took part in figurative expressionism".
  • This reference is not suitable to validate the text and should be removed.
  • Ty 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The quotations substantiate the point that there were Abstract Expressionists who took part in Figurative Expressionism. The referenced page numbers include two reproductions from the work of each artist: one figurative and one non-representational. (Salmon1 (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

"This art book is highly recommended for Libraries supporting both Studio and Art History programs"−CHOICE: Current reviews for Academic Libraries, 2009. (Salmon1 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 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) 05:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The suggested deletion is an often repeated sentence with no cited reference:

"In the United States and Canada Lyrical Abstraction beginning in the late 1960s and the 1970s. Characterized by the work of Dan Christensen, Peter Young, Ronnie Landfield, Ronald Davis, Larry Poons, Walter Darby Bannard, Charles Arnoldi, Pat Lipsky and many others." (Salmon1 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Refs inserted. If that is what you want, just say so, or use a {{fact}} tag next to the material. NB not a tag to distribute liberally, but where there is a particular need. Ty 03:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of reference

You deleted the added citation for the third time at the paragraph: Expressionist groups in painting. According to Marilyn Stokstad, the British art historian:

“Expressionism (is) the manipulation of formal or representational elements to convey intense feelings.” This reference is in Worldcat.org. I do not see any reason to delete it when the article is poor in citations. (Salmon1 (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

Worldcat.org is not the ultimate arbiter of art values. One quote in isolation is hardly adequate to define the subject. The Tate definition includes, "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."[3] It ends, "It [Expressionism] went abstract with Abstract Expressionism." We clearly need a section which encompasses Expressionism in abstract art. Lyrical abstraction is one of those facets and is, as I've pointed out above, defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists as "a type of expressive ... painting".[4] You have not answered the question of what expressive painting is categorised as, if it is not categorised as Expressionism. Ty 15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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.” You have reverted Lyrical Abstraction to the article: Expressionism while you deleted the reference citation. It is appropriate to return the citation by Marilyn Stokstad and add the Tate citation to the place of earlier deletion. (Salmon1 (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

• At the moment the article falls between two stools. It starts "Expressionism was a cultural movement originating in Germany at the start of the 20th-century as a reaction to positivism and other artistic movements such as naturalism and impressionism.[1]", but goes on to cover a rather wider range, though not the widest possible - art historians find it impossible to describe the 9th century Ebbo Gospels or Utrecht Psalter without using the term (with a small "e"). If we are keeping the wide range, I don't see why Lyrical Abstraction should not be included, if Sidney Nolan etc are. If we are sticking to what the Tate calls German Expressionism, then both should go. I don't mind the current balance myself, but the lede should be edited to make the scope clearer. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is not "German Expressionism", but "Expressionism", so it needs to cover the latter subject fully, including later and abstract versions of it. The Tate ends its definition of Expressionism with the statement, "It went abstract with Abstract Expressionism." Yes, the lede needs to reflect this. The lede is a summary of the article, not the determinant of the article content. Ty 02:33, 23 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 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." (Salmon1 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

The Tate definition goes on to expand to a broader definition, which you have omitted. The rest is:

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. Ty 02:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Working toward consensus

Copied from: Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Visual arts][5]

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) 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) 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) 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.

"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."

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 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.

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.’’

’’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.’’

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."

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",[6]. One minute after this, I posted a rationale on the talk page.[7] 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".[8] You then posted the edit summary, which does not address any of the points I made, on the talk page.[9] I reverted your article edit at 23:40, 21 August 2009 with the edit summary, "Discuss on talk page before reverting".[10] 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."[11] 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.[12] Ty 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification and working toward consensus

I presented the study, titled:

” Working toward consensus.”

in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. An argument made for the:

”deletion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article, Expressionism.” (Salmon1 (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

The same day I received a reply in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts by Tyrenius where he stated:

"...It is completely irrelevant as to whether Lyrical Abstraction should or should not be included in the article Expressionism." Ty 02:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Following the reply the same day 21:42, 26 August 2009 I deleted Lyrical Abstraction from Expressionism with the description of action:

“consensus was reached to allow for the deletion of Lyrical Abstraction.”

According to Tyrenius:

”OK, it's now been reverted by a third different editor,[13] which + Johnbod on the talk page means you are in a minority of one against 4. The consensus at the moment is clearly against removal, but discussion is still in progress on the talk page.” Ty 00:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Freshacconci 00:17, 27 August 2009 - replenished deletion of Lyrical Abstraction. The description of action:

“I don’t see a consensus for this”

Johnbod 21:16 22 August 2009 - on Revision history of Talk:Expressionism. The description of action:

“Comment” ”I don't see why Lyrical Abstraction should not be included, if Sidney Nolan etc are.”

Modernist 04:39, 22 August 2009 - deleted quote of Expressionism by Marilyn Stokstad and replenished Lyrical Abstraction. the description of action:

”rvt nonsenses per WP:UCS and WP:IAR.”

Modernist 13:41, 22 August 2009 - The description of action:

”re-added quote.”

Modernist 16:44, 22 August 2009 - deleted quote. The description of action:

”per talk.”

I don’t see the fourth party against the deletion. (Salmon1 (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

You have named four editors: Freshacconci, Johnbod, Modernist, Tyrenius. You have taken my quote out of context and have possibly misunderstood it. With the sentence preceding it, it reads: "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"; i.e. the use of text in other articles is irrelevant as far as considering text in this article: each article needs to be judged individually on its own merits.

There is no need to continually wikilink words in your posts, when they are easily understandable. It just makes your text harder to read and confusing. You should especially not wikilink words in other people's posts which you quote, when they did not do this themselves in the first place, as you are thereby misrepresenting and actually misquoting them. Bold should be avoided in talk page posts: see Wikipedia:TPG#Good_practices.

I gained the impression from your initial arguments that you considered Expressionism was a figurative genre, and abstract movements should not be included. Is this a correct interpretation of your position?

Ty 23:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you named yourself as a participant in the above dispute, please read the information below:

Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been trusted with access to restricted technical features ("tools"). For example, administrators can protect and delete pages, and block other editors. See Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools.

Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers; they are not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved.

Respect and civility is a necessary feature in communication. (Salmon1 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

I am aware of that and have not used any admin tools in the dispute or indicated that I would, so I don't see what the problem is. Your posts are somewhat cryptic at times. Ty 01:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

About the list of artists

It just seems kind of immensely disproportionate towards american artists when they don't even have much importance to art history, comparing to german or austrian (who ridiculously only get two) expressionists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.215.194 (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

expanding this article from the Spanish article

I restored a expand template removed some time ago. The user who removed it said that it wasn't helpful, but didn't give further information on why, nor did the user respond to my query on their talk page. I'm not hell-bent on this template, and if there's a good reason it shouldn't be there, then that's fine; but it seems to me that if ever an article could benefit from translation (and thus from this template), it's this one. The English article is sketchy, incomplete, and somewhat self-contradictory; the lead doesn't really address what's covered in the article, and the "Origin of the term" section is disorganized, misleading, partially inaccurate, and contains what seems to be original research. The Spanish article, by contrast, is a featured article, well-sourced, well-organized, comprehensive, and worthy of the status of an encyclopedic entry on art history. For these reasons, I think the template should stay unless there's a more appropriate template, or until the discrepancy between the qualities of the English and Spanish articles disappears. What do others think? Sindinero (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Before changing this article it requires consensus from other editors who have worked on it. User:Freshacconci is a senior visual arts editor and has expressed a negative opinion concerning your proposal. I am removing your template until you gain approval from the community, thank you...Modernist (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's not exactly how consensus works on wikipedia. For one thing, consensus is not permission, and nobody needs "approval" to edit a page (see WP:OWN), and for another, adding an article template is not changing it in the same way that altering its content would be. As someone who is not totally ignorant of expressionism, I say that the article needs serious work, and adding a template pointing out a specific, useful resource is not at all equivalent to making serious changes to a more established article. All the good work that the editor in question has done does not entitle that editor to make summary revisions without discussion. I'm trying to proceed via WP:BRD, but I haven't gotten any answer at all as to why the template was inappropriate. Of BRD, we've gotten B and R, twice now, but still seem to get hung up on D. Ball's in your court, as they say. I respect the contributions that you and the other editor have made, but arguing a homine isn't how wikipedia works either. S/he may well be a senior editor, a PhD student, or a PhD - on wikipedia, credentials are irrelevant - it's the reasons and justifications that matter. These templates exist for a reason, and the burden is on the person reverting to say why the template doesn't apply. Sindinero (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, add quality content, forget the template, if you are taking material from the spanish article, translate the material in user space and add it...Modernist (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, that would be the best solution. But templates are used in the interim to indicate problems (and possible solutions) with articles. Do you object to the expand template as such, or its use in this case? In my opinion, only a well-reasoned argument for the latter would justify the deletion of the template. Opposition to the template as such would be something to discuss at the village pump, not here. Sindinero (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Then take it to the Village pump...Modernist (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood me - what I said was that if you object to the template as such, you would need to take it to the village pump. If you accept the template as such but don't agree that it's appropriate for this article, then a specific reason is needed, which is what I've been trying unsuccessfully to get this whole time. If neither of those are the case, then the template should be restored. That all seems in line with policy and the basic demands of consistency, no? Sindinero (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish article looks terrific by the way...Modernist (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I object to the template because of WP:OWN (the template implies the article is under a particular point of view) it discourages other editors from working here and it creates an unnecessary artificial parameter to the article. If you want to go to the village pump go ahead, but if you want to edit then edit...Modernist (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

First you say that people wishing to edit this article must secure "approval," then you say you object to the template because it discourages other editors from working here, citing WP:OWN...? That doesn't make much sense, and I'm likewise unsure what an "unnecessary artificial parameter" is. These templates exist for a reason. Wikipedia is a multilingual project, and a lot can be gained for weak articles by translating strong, or in this case featured, articles to fill them out. I put the expand template on this article to include new users, not discourage them. If you read about the template, you'll see that it automatically includes this article into a category likely watched by more people than watch this article. Eventually, one of them may decide to help out, thus bringing another editor into the process and improving this article. Again, the templates as well as the emphasis on interWiki translation are a part of Wikipedia. If you object to this template's existence, then you need to raise that in the appropriate forum, whether the village pump or templates for deletion. If you don't have a specific objection to the template's applicability to this article, then it needs to be restored. Again with all due respect, "a senior editor doesn't like it" is neither particularly welcoming nor is it adequate justification for removing an accepted template. It's also contrary to Wikipedia policy. Sindinero (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned either edit or don't...Modernist (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

By that do you mean that the template can be restored? If yes, then thank you; if no, then you still haven't answered my questions above. Sindinero (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Restore it but be mindful of WP:OWN, as I mentioned...Modernist (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The whole purpose of placing a template like this on an article is with an eye towards its eventual removal. I hope this will help this article gets to where it needs to go. Could you be more specific, though, of what you mean by "be mindful of WP:OWN"? Sindinero (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Basically you don't like this article and you do like the spanish article, you are saying about this article - WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and about the spanish article you are saying WP:ILIKEIT implying its a better article, in your opinion, others may have differing points of view, is what I am saying...Modernist (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh? That's not what I'm saying at all. The Spanish article is a featured article - I think it could be a good source of material not because subjectively I prefer its take over this article's, but because it's been through an extensive review process, and is substantially more complete than this article. Individual preference or opinion has nothing to do with it. When I put the template there, I was thinking more of the fact that the Spanish article is featured and this article is start-class than of any particular point or point of view; these classifications indicate, if you like, a consensus on the relative quality of these articles. Does that make sense to you? Or do you actually think that the English article is better than the Spanish one?

It's also starting to get tedious that you keep turning policy points I mention around, as if I were the one violating them. Pretty sure that your statement that editors need permission to edit a page qualifies as WP:OWN, if anything does, and that your statement that "User:Freshacconci is a senior visual arts editor and has expressed a negative opinion concerning your proposal" falls under WP:IDON'TLIKEIT more than anything I've said. Sindinero (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with these templates is that it does discourage editors to work on an article, especially new editors, because it appears that a project is underway or major edits are forthcoming, so why bother editing? Likewise, editors who do not speak the other language are at a huge disadvantage because there is no way of knowing just how good the non-English article is in comparison. Finally, I am not clear at all how the English version of this article is not "where it needs to go". What does that mean exactly and why is the Spanish article better? Again, as a non-Spanish speaker I am at a disadvantage here. All Wikipedia articles need improvement, even FAs need upkeep. No one is claiming ownership here in any way. I just don't like these sorts of bureaucratic measures added to an article -- without any sort of discussion -- that can potentially preclude useful editing. As it stands, it appears to a casual editor that someone is going to replace large sections of this article, or the article as a whole, with the translated Spanish version, so why should I waste my time doing any edits on this article since they will just be replaced with the supposed superior Spanish version. As for taking it to the Village Pump, I don't recall reading anywhere that the Pump is some sort of overseer to all projects and decrees from above trump local consensus. This template is not useful and is a potential hindrance to good faith editing, especially from new editors who don't know their way around and wouldn't know the Village Pump if they tripped over it. We shouldn't need to go there to resolve an issue here. freshacconci talktalk 11:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is hardly a start-class article. It clearly hasn't been assessed in a while. The problem with relying on the standards of other-language Wikipedia projects is that an editor has no way of comparing this article to the other one. It was a featured article in Spanish Wikipedia. What exactly does that mean here on English Wikipedia? What is the criteria at Spanish Wikipedia? What sources do they use--I can't read them so I have no idea. I really don't see how this is useful in any way. It's one thing to see a good article in another language Wiki and move it over, letting others know what you're doing. It's another thing to leave a template and discourage any work from being done. freshacconci talktalk 11:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't appreciate my edits being undone with the comment that my edit was "unexplained". That is bad-faith in the extreme. I clearly said in the edit summary that the template wasn't helpful. freshacconci talktalk 11:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't allege bad faith where there was none. I didn't undo your edit until much later, after you didn't respond to my question on your talk page. You said that the template wasn't "helpful," but this summary is itself less than helpful. Disagreeing with the purpose of a template as such is one question, to be discussed in one forum; in my opinion, removing the template here requires specific reasons why the template isn't applicable to this article. Sindinero (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My issue was that you claimed my edit was done without explanation which is false. I explained my edit. You didn't like my explanation. That's the difference. freshacconci talktalk 11:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's actually not true - if you look both at your talk page, and at the opening comment of this section, I state quite clearly that you gave a justification for it, but that I requested more detail, which I never got. I didn't say that it was without explanation. It wasn't that I didn't like your explanation, just that I didn't really understand it. Look at my tone in my first question to you - I'm actually sincerely curious about your motivations. Saying that I just did it because I didn't like it is, if predictable, also unfair, and a touch petulant. Sindinero (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As for "removing the template here requires specific reasons why the template isn't applicable to this article"; two editors have now provided detailed reasons for its removal. I hope this settles it. Anyone can add any translated text they wish. freshacconci talktalk 12:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Right. Anyone, that is, except for people who watch categories of translation or expand requests. Your reasons are also arguments against the expand template as such, rather than why it applies to this article, but perhaps you still don't see that.

I removed the template per above...Modernist (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to seem less like consensus than total arbitrariness. No reason has been given about why an accepted Wikipedia template is specifically inapplicable to this article, and I don't feel that either of you are making good-faith efforts to meet me halfway. Yes, templates are blemishes on articles (which visual objection seems to be what your opposition boils down to), but they're necessary, and temporary ones on the way to improving articles. This feels a lot like WP:OWNership and editing by fiat. If you object to the template as such, then this is a larger issue to be dealt with elsewhere. The Spanish article is simply more complete, and anyone can see this. It's not like Spanish is an obscure language or something; perhaps you can't read it, but others can, and your the fact that you can't read Spanish isn't really the most solid ground on which to base your argument. I didn't put the template there to discourage anything - for the reasons I've repeatedly given above, I did this to encourage participation in this article, since I didn't have time at the moment to translate it myself. This article seems, if not well-researched, at least well-protected; if you don't want the participation of others, and would prefer to let it wallow than be improved by the collaborative tools of Wikipedia (among which expand templates), there's not much I can do. Sindinero (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Those are a lot of assumptions: "which visual objection seems to be what your opposition boils down to". Really? That is beyond patronizing and nowhere do we say we don't like the "look" of the template. No, my objection is clearly the wording of the template and its implications. Local consensus is still important. We object to the template. Maintenance templates are useful. I use them myself. But I would also be open to objections to their use if others felt it was heavy-handed. Why don't I take my issue with this template elsewhere? Because I choose not to get bogged down in the bureaucracy of the Village Pump and similar forums. My editing of Wikipedia does not require me to slog through all of that just because I oppose the use of one template on one particular article. Likewise "the fact that you can't read Spanish isn't really the most solid ground on which to base your argument" is beyond insulting. Actually, it's a pretty solid argument. I can't verify the content in the Spanish article. I have no idea if that article is ant good. I can't verify the sources if they are all in Spanish. I read some German but I would never ask other editors to just "trust me" on something I wanted to move over from the German Wikipedia. And again, you cry "bad faith" while indulging in it yourself: "This article seems, if not well-researched, at least well-protected". This is false and neither of us have made any statements that can be interpreted that way. We welcome any and all contributions to this article and may I add, our welcome is not necessary in the least. Edit, don't edit. It's not my call. What we object to is one template that we do not feel adds anything to the article. I have absolutely no objection to anyone moving text over from Spanish Wikipedia. I do feel that this template is wrong; it's worded to make it appear a major move is about to take place and editing is not welcome. It is extremely bitey and any potential discouragement of new editors should be avoided. freshacconci talktalk 12:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A template is bitey to new editors of an article, but this kind of goal-tending isn't? I guess I don't get this. The template's wording has nothing that would imply the imminence of a major move, and I think anyone who clicks around a little to learn more about these templates would see that. I didn't mean to insult your lack of Spanish, but it seems a bizarre justification to use, because the implication is that, to use Modernist's language, it needs your approval - if you can't verify the usefulness of the Spanish article, then we should assume until proven otherwise that it's not useful. The better course of action, for any of us, in any context here, would seem to be to step back where knowledge is wanting (I mean this in a non-judgmental way), to allow those who can read Spanish, and who do know about Expressionism, to check out the Spanish article and see what can be gained from translation. That's all I meant - that arguing from a lack seems counterintuitive. A template is a suggestion, nothing more, and doesn't require anyone to "trust" anyone on what's moved over or not. Anything that is then translated and moved into the English article would then, obviously, be subject to all the same stringency as any other new content. I don't see how you can interpret the placement of a template as a demand that all editors, whatever their linguistic facility, accept the content of the foreign article; that's just absurd. These templates often deserve to be removed, but only if the suggested foreign article isn't up to snuff, or the entry term ("Expressionism," e.g.) has a different meaning in a different cultural context, or for other similar reasons. If you can't evaluate the Spanish article, what I would do in your position is recuse yourself a little bit and allow the space and time for those who can, to do so. That's all I meant by protecting and goal-tending. I see where you're coming from but disagree with your rationale and interpretation of the template's purpose. Again, I'm not hell-bent on the template, but can you perhaps see how a total lack of response, and then the summary, dismissive, and arbitrary tenor of the response I finally got (from Modernist) might give the impression that the template was being rejected simply because someone didn't like it? Sindinero (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording of the template is poor. This is what a new editor would see: This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Spanish Wikipedia. It doesn't give any sort of welcome, or indication that you (the new editor) can do the editing. It says the article "may" be expanded, which to me sounds like it is imminent. How is any of this supposed "goal-tending" (which was simply a removal of a template placed by an experienced editor) bitey? Neither Modernist nor I have attempted to scare away any new editor that I am aware of. freshacconci talktalk 17:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the template should be worded better, I can agree with you there. But 'may' is pretty open, and I think everybody knows that Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia that anybody can edit," though the last half has been taken out of the motto. Any template, whether one referring to OR, to sources needed, or whatever, would seem susceptible to the risk you describe, and I'm not convinced that this is a good reason not to use a given template. Personally, I do think the translate template is extremely useful because it assigns the article to a category that people watch. A lot of editors contribute largely through translation of other Wikis, and they get their workload from these categories. But look, I appreciate you giving a detailed rationale; that's what I wanted in the first place. I definitely agree that local consensus is important, and that's why I haven't been edit-warring by restoring the template. I disagree with your assessment of the template's likely effect, but I see your reasons and am happy to cede the point.

The goal-tending I referred to earlier was in the context of a lack of a response, where Modernist incorrectly stated that new changes to an article need approval, and that the negative opinion of a senior editor was enough reason for a template to be, and stay, removed. Both of those claims go against wikipedia policy; more importantly, they're abrupt, dismissive, and - without further explanation - arbitrary. I don't think I can be blamed for getting the impression that the reason for removal of the template was something like "because we say so," and that Modernist, who at times acted more like a bailiff than a fellow editor, was intent on dealing with me by managerial diktat more than by explanation and reasoned argumentation. That's not acceptable; your justifications on the other hand, while I may disagree with them, are a way of reaching consensus. Thanks for taking the time. Sindinero (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I didn't originally "cry 'bad faith'", you did, and incorrectly, as I pointed out, something you still haven't responded to. I never said that your edit was "unexplained"... Sindinero (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary clearly states "restored expand template removed without reason". I gave a reason. You just didn't care for it. freshacconci talktalk 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, that's what it says, but context is important. This undo occurred a couple of weeks after your deletion of the template, during which time I tried, politely, in good faith, and all that, to get a more thorough explanation for your deletion. By "without reason" I meant on the one hand that your original edit wasn't satisfactorily explained. You said the template is not helpful, but not really why, or what would be helpful. I realize of course that edit summaries are just summaries, which is why I asked for a little more detail on your talk page. On the other hand, with "without reason" I meant that you hadn't responded to this question. Please assume good faith - my edit summary had nothing to do with the fact that I didn't care for it, as you allege, but that you didn't really give me enough information to go on. I should have been clearer, but it wasn't my intention to say that you had provided no justification whatsoever, just that it wasn't adequate for another editor (me, in this case) to work with. Communicating our reasons and motivations is, after all, the basis of any sound consensus. Sindinero (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So in other words - you don't have time to edit this article but you just want to put a template on it because you like the spanish article better...Modernist (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'm tempted to ask whether you bothered to read my response to this accusation above. If you did, you can see that I explain this has nothing to do with personal preference or my own opinion. If you can't understand this point, it's not really my problem; I've been about as clear as possible. Sindinero (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I read this in regards to the template - since I didn't have time at the moment to translate it myself...Modernist (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, but you're reading in the wrong place to find my response to your main accusation, that my use of the template had anything to do with personal preference. Seems like you should be able to find my response on your own, but just in case, here it is --> I wrote: "That's not what I'm saying at all. The Spanish article is a featured article - I think it could be a good source of material not because subjectively I prefer its take over this article's, but because it's been through an extensive review process, and is substantially more complete than this article. Individual preference or opinion has nothing to do with it. When I put the template there, I was thinking more of the fact that the Spanish article is featured and this article is start-class than of any particular point or point of view; these classifications indicate, if you like, a consensus on the relative quality of these articles. Does that make sense to you? Or do you actually think that the English article is better than the Spanish one?"

Elsewhere in this thread I also detail why the Spanish article seems more complete than the English one. Not having the time to immediately fix a problem is pretty common; that's why maintenance tags exist, they're one of the excellent tools Wikipedia has for a collaborative and long-term improvement of articles. Sindinero (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Kafka.

It would be hard to argue convincingly that Kafka's works are 'expressionist.' Could we remove this or at least have a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.172.248 (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have enough literary sources to hand, but his play is published in a volume of Expressionist works, and the publisher Kurt Wolff indicates that Kafka is usually grouped with the Expressionists in literary histories (even though he personally disagrees with this classification). The Kafka Encyclopaedia contains a long entry on Expressionism and details his affinities with the movement's literature. Stanley Corngold has a chapter on "Kafka as Expressionist". Sokel makes a similar argument, I believe. Rather than removing, what's needed is a clarification of the relationship for which specific critics have argued.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 10:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I second the request for sources and clarification here. I actually don't think he's usually grouped with the Expressionists in literary histories (not, as far as I'm aware, in German scholarship) although he may be sometimes. His prose style is so different from the Expressionists that it seems that it's largely the infelicities of canonization that lead him to get lumped in with them. I deleted the Kafka sentence before seeing this thread; I'll restore it now, but with a by whom template on it, since it's too big a claim to stand unsourced and unmarked. Sindinero (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

keeping the "poArtExpressionism.com" external link

It appears User:Modernist is controlling the "Expressionism" wiki page. I think that link should be here. This is for the sake of any user choosing to view the next movement in expressionism.

Even though User:Modernist states

Modernist will take an extensive wikibreak and will be editing only when time permits.

he appears to be moderating this page.

Modernist stated on my talk page "recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. " Does this mean that "Modernist" can only make 3 changes on this page per 24 hour period? JuliusJeff (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You would do well to read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and comment on content and not other editors...Modernist (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Though I am actually a bit busy working on a documentary film, I will email other individuals to post this link, which and I and they feel is valid. This link does justice to the wiki topic of "Expressionism." Thank you for informing me how wiki works.

btw There are many errors in wiki. Just because something is in print, can have little to do with accurate information. Newspapers and magazines often reflect the ideals of the owners who pay the employees [ie often for propaganda]. This also goes for peer reviewed journals. Look back in history, for example how the pharma industry funds research and pays for university professors etc.

Also, often external sources are good links for additional angles into the subject matter. I use them all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliusJeff (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This external link looks like a commercial site. Rwood128 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Original poArt Expressionism paintings are available to purchase. Some paintings are available as limited edition prints." Rwood128 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

a few albeit brief comments. Rwood, how is this is a commercial site? This is a site sharing PoArt Expressionism - poartexpressionism.com/ the expressionistic art that speaks. Like the page shows, each painting has its poem. Scot Aaron is actually anti-commercial and more into "sharing."

If you study art and grasp the potential future of art within changes of a movement, like expressionism, then poArt Expressionism which Scot Aaron has begun through his 16 years of expressionistic painting [done with this hands, watercolor pencils, and fingerpainting] each with its poem, does justice.

Actually I emailed Scot Aaron he stated his poArt Expressionism Art "will stand the test of time or will not." He is unconcerned about a link on wiki. However, I think that many students search wiki for papers and projects and deserve this external link.... I am very busy with a current project but may follow up on this talk. Regardless, this is a learning experience on wiki. Have a great Day, Julius — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliusJeff (talk • contribs) 11:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

thoughts and comments on the poetry and art poArtExpressionism.com page

any additional talk on the Scot Aaron's poArt Expression addition.

example of poArt Expressionism

--JuliusJeff (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

1st African-American Expressionist Painter

Ebony Magazine called Harlem Renaissance era artist and leader William Ernest Braxton the first Black American expressionist painter in the February 1968 edition. The article includes a photograph of an example of his work. The famous Black collage artist Romare Bearden stated this as well in an interview given the same year. I believe Braxton is worthy of investigating and noting in this topic. A great resource on him is the Schomburg Center of Research of Black Culture of the New York Public Library. They hold of collection of Braxton's work that dates back to his relationship with Arturo Alfonso Schomberg himself. 2603:8081:2F00:F218:5908:C2FB:8EDE:C93F (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Over 50 years on, one would want some academic sources really. A bio should come first. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)