Talk:Makinti Napanangka

Possible sources of biographical info to check

• Kreczmanski, Janusz B & Birnberg, Margo (eds.): Aboriginal Artists: Dictionary of Biographies: Central Desert, Western Desert & Kimberley Region (JB Publishing Australia, Marleston, 2004) Done
• New McCulloch Encyclopedia of Australian Art Done
• Culture Warriors (National Indigenous Art Triennial 2007) Nothing
• Papunya Painting: Out of the desert (National Museum of Australia) Nothing
• The Oxford Companion to Aboriginal Art and Culture (2000) Nothing on Napanangka directly; some useful background on Papunya
• Untitled: Portraits of Australian Artists (2007) Nothing
• Morphy, Howard: Aboriginal Art (1998) Nothing
• McCulloch, Susan: Contemporary Aboriginal Art: A guide to the rebirth of an ancient culture (1999) Nothing on Napanangka directly; some useful background on Papunya etc
• Strocchi, Marina: Ikuntji: Paintings from Haasts Bluff 1992-1994 (1994) (may have been published too early to assist)Nothing on Makinta; contains background on the foundation of the women's painting group, but only confirming existing sources
• Perkins, Hetti and Hannah Fink (eds): Papunya Tula: genesis and genius (2000) Done
• Johnson, Vivien: Papunya Painting: out of the desert (2008) Nothing
• Johnson, Vivien: Lives of the Papunya Tula Artists (2008) Done
• Perkins, Hetti, in Tradition today: Indigenous art in Australia (2004)

Some possible clarifications?

• Should we just use the name 'Makinti' throughout, rather than 'Napanangka'? The reason I suggest that is because 'Napanangka' is a classificatory relationship name (a 'skin name'), which she shares with 1 woman in 8 at Kintore. Her personal name is Makinti and there are no family names (not amongst the older people, anyway).
• Should we put a note in there somewhere explaining what a 'peewee' is? A bit awkward, since the word is used in a quote. Perhaps in square brackets?
• I don't think we need to use both 'Lupul' and 'Lupulnga' (except where the second appears in a quote) as the latter is the nominative form in Pintupi; in English we can just use 'Lupul'.

Dougg (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right about the name - I knew i had this wrong and had forgotten the correct explanation of why it was wrong. Would you like to insert an explanation in a footnote the first time it is used in the article?
• An explanation of Peewee as suggested is a good idea, I'll do that.
• I'd prefer to keep the two forms of the word Lupul, because different references use different forms - don't want to leave a reader thinking they might be two distinct things. On other hand, this could also be done using notes. I might try that. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was going to put in a link to Australian Aboriginal kinship, but it's a bit of a mess I thought I'd better clean it up a bit first! I'll try to get some things done there and then I'll put in a link to the first instance of 'Napanangka' in this article. I'm still not really sure about referring to her as Makinti, or Napanangka, or perhaps her full name. I might go and look thru the WP help pages, see if there's any relevant guidance.

On the 'Lupul/nga' question, yes, a note would be good. Its actually absolutive case, not nominative <hangs head in shame> so maybe a link there would be useful.

Dougg (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GAN

Not doing a review, but this needs a bigger lead at least YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right, had forgotten to do that. Expanded lead now in place. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dicussion about image use (copied from User talk:Elcobbola)

Hello. You're name was suggested to me in a discussion, as someone who can help with image copyright and use questions. You may be able to assist. I current have an article Makinti Napanangka at FAC, about a contemporary Indigenous Australian artist. The page lacks any image of her artwork. In Australia, the artist holds copyright in their works, regardless of the sale of the works or of where they might be hanging. A question has arisen of whether an image of a work, or of part of a work, might be able to be used in these circumstances. I don't actually have such an image, so I think the question in practice is whether an image such as this, from the National Gallery of Victoria, might in some way be appropriately reproduced. Do you have any comment? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hamiltonstone, Australia has freedom of panorama (FoP). If an artistic work, such as a painting, is permanently situated in a public place, it is not an infringement of the artist's copyright to photograph that work. (Your statement of "the artist holds copyright in their works, regardless of the sale of the works or of where they might be hanging" is technically true. FoP, however, does not invalidate copyright (i.e. the artist still holds it); FoP only limits certain aspects of its exclusivity.) See Section 65 of the Copyright Act of 1968 for the actual statute. That said, a photograph of the painting (assuming it is indeed permanently located in an area accessible to the public), would indeed be "free" enough for our purposes.

The secondary issue that was brought up on Malleus' page is whether the creator of such a photograph is him or herself entitled to copyright (e.g. by virtue of choice of filters, lighting, etc.) There is case law in the UK to support this notion (thus the threat of litigation from the National Portrait Gallery), but a lengthy discussion on the Commons established that this will not be recognized. Эlcobbola _talk 13:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I had been quite unaware of section 65, a significant oversight on my part. Unfortunately, i don't know that it is going to help in this case. The National Gallery of Australia prohibits photography in its galleries, the Art Gallery of New South Wales has a specific ban on photographing Aboriginal art, while the Queensland Gallery states that photography of the permanent collection is permitted "for personal use only", which I do not think covers publishing on WP! I am not aware of other works by Makinti permanently on display in a public area. There may be one in Darwin's public gallery, but that is about 3000 kilometres away from here. Is there any scope for the fair use of an image such as the one linked above? I ask following Eubulides' comment at the FAC discussion. This notice on the NGV website is not very encouraging. Thanks for your help. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you might have missed the issue with the derivative works (forgive me if I’m wrong; I want to be sure we’re on the same page). When one photographs a creative work, there is, the potential for several copyrights in one, so to speak: the work being photographed and the photograph itself (a derivative work). In the United States, such copying of a 2D work (e.g. a painting) is generally considered “slavish” reproduction which is not expected to pass the threshold of originality required to generate a copyright for the photograph. This is also, rightly or wrongly, the position adopted at the Commons after the aforementioned discussion. That being the case, for our purposes, it doesn’t matter whether Joe Q. Wikipedian or the gallery itself has taken the photograph, as there would be only one copyright—the one held by Napanangka. Accordingly, although the gallery may request private use, that isn’t expected to be a position with any legal or enforceable basis (again, this is from a US/Commons standpoint; Australian case law, like UK case law, may differ).

Eubulides' comment about fair use probably pertains to his/her assessment against NFCC#8: that an image would provide a significant contribution to the reader’s understanding. I agree that it would. NFCC#1, however, only allows fair use when a free version is not available and " could [not] be created". Given that Australia has FoP, I suspect a free version could indeed be obtained or created by, for example, finding a gallery-taken photo of a permanent work or by traveling/enlisting the services of a wikipedian 3000 km away. Эlcobbola _talk 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I follow. Do you have a view about the definition of "permanent"? I ask because, while I am aware of a number of Makinti's works that are permanently owned by public galleries in Australia, I cannot prove one way or the other whether they are permanently on physical display - however, they are permanently on display on the gallery websites. Would that be compliant in your view? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Although the Copyright Act is probably "as amended", the 1968 date would lead me to suspect that display on the internet was not something foreseen or meant to be addressed by Section 65. I don't know enough about Australian law to say what exactly "otherwise than temporarily" means. If it behaves as it does in Germany, there are considerations such as the work's likelihood of being recalled, the intentions of the author and the reason for the public exhibition. Generally speaking, permanence is usually the natural life of the work. General practice on Wikipedia/Commons is that display in a gallery/museum for a reasonable length of time (i.e. several years) is sufficient permanence. Whether that would be the interpretation in "the real world", I don't know. Эlcobbola _talk 15:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can you look at this proposal and tell me if you think it will pass muster? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That justification looks good to me. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Эlcobbola _talk 17:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent revisions to article

There have been a number of changes made to the article recently, most of which I have reverted. I don't want to be thought to WP:OWN the article, so thought I should explain some things here. Some of the changes appeared inconsistent with WP policies and guidelines, such as WP:MOSDASH. Another involved replacing the artist infobox with a person infobox. I did not see why one would do this, given that the original infobox was off a template specifically fort the purpose of an article such as this one. Then there was the removal of an uncertain date range for birth from the infobox. I don't see why the uncertainty should mean it be omitted. Another change was the addition in the infobox of the number of children. However, we do not have a reliable source for there being 4 children: rather, reliable sources have identified 4: my point being there may have been more children of which the sources were not aware (particularly in the case of Indigenous Australians, for reasons I will spell out in more detail if asked). Another change caused a link to become broken.

There were some changes that seemed helpful mixed in with the problematic ones. I have made some efforts to reinstate those where possible (examples included a copyedit of one sentence, and the integration of two lists under the one heading). If other edits want further comment on any particular change or revert that I undertook, please do ask. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Another example: the source do not substantiate the claim that she was born between 1922 and 1930. Rather, there are sources that say she was born circa 1922 or circa 1930. To change that to between appears to me to misrepresent the sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, rewritten to address hamiltonstone's concerns. Pls. review. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I realise the lead and infobox need some sort of simplication of the sources, but I don't think we should accept a solution that involves omitting a birthdate/estimate from the lead altogether. I'll think about it some more tomorrow. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll add, it still irks me seeing 'Kumantjayi' here written with the Arrernte orthography, instead of in the orthography of Napanangka's own language, Pintupi. Dougg (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Makinti Napanangka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801003546/http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/clemenger2003/a_napanangka.html to http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/artists/napanangka-makinti/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801003546/http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/clemenger2003/a_napanangka.html to http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/artists/napanangka-makinti/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Makinti Napanangka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nt.gov.au%2Fnreta%2Fmuseums%2Fexhibitions%2Fnatsiaa%2F25%2Fpdf%2Froom_brochure.pdf&date=2010-10-11 to http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/museums/exhibitions/natsiaa/25/pdf/room_brochure.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Makinti Napanangka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926233510/http://nt.gov.au/nreta/museums/exhibitions/natsiaa/25/gallery/general/tracks/37.mp3 to http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/museums/exhibitions/natsiaa/25/gallery/general/tracks/37.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Caption for infobox image.

It is probably good to add a caption to the infobox about the image. Gazozlu (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

With the date - at the moment that is easy to confuse with her birth date just below. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)