Talk:White Mountain art

Recent Edits

I'd like to discuss your edits concerning the Willey tradgedy. I'm new to wikipedia, so please bear with me.

Is there a standard format for dates? I find 28 August 1826 unusual. I see that it allows for two links, but are they necessary? I don't like abbreviations, since I don't feed they're necessary. How about "the notch between Mounts Willey and Webster?" Your edits do not make it clear that the Willey family had both parents and five children at the home at the time of the mudslide. Did you leave out the Bible because it can't be verified? Did you leave out the "buried under ..." because it's too graphic? I also suggest using an 'mdash' in the sentence containing "... allure — tradegy and nature — was ..."

JJ 14:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hi! Thanks for checking back in. :-) Your original draft struck me as feeling just a little bit sensationalist, if you will permit me to say. I mainly wanted to make the language a little less informal and more neutral. Please feel free to edit the details back in if you feel that they're strongly relevant. As for your style questions:
  • The preferred format for dates is described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The format in which the date is rendered is actually defined by the reader's preferences; check out Special:Preferences to change to a different format for viewing.
  • Your point about the abbreviations is well taken -- I personally would find "Mount Willey and Mount Webster" easier to read, but don't care about "Mt." vs. "Mount". :-)
  • I agree with the mdash too, good on you for spotting that.
  • Please feel free to re-edit something if you feel strongly about it, and post a note in the article's "Talk" page if you seem to have a strong difference of opinion with another editor. Be bold in updating!
  • And hey! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! :-) Tim Pierce 17:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Added more details about the Willey tradegy. Made the changes I first suggested.

 JJ 19:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I failed to sign in, so the edit of 69.161.63.23 are me, JJ 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC). So, if you have talk, please address to me.

JJ 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Higher resolution pics

Can we get larger pictures. I click on them hoping to see big landscapes and they are just thumbnail sized. Broken S 02:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The only images that do not have a link to a higher resolution image are the Thomas Hill of Crawford Notch and the Champney at 17. Is there a way to link the small images to larger ones on wikipedia? JJ 03:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

the "thumb" command automaticaly resizes large images into smaller thumbs (so a small resized version of the pic will appear and link to the full size). If you can find larger versions you can upload them right on top of the current pictures and you won't have to change anything. And I'm going to sleep. Broken S 03:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have uploaded larger images as you suggested. Please check them out. Again, any further suggestions are gladly welcome. JJ 14:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Feedback

Outstanding article. I love reading about this kind of stuff--nearly everyone has heard of the Hudson River School artists, but you've done some great research into this important and lesser-known early center of artistic activity.

Your images are terrific--great examples. I also like that you don't "over-link" the article: for example, another writer might have linked the word "artists" in your first sentence to the Wikipedia article "artist". This is a pet-peeve of mine; I think links should only be inserted to clarify something not commonly known.

If I were to make one suggestion it would be about the introduction. As someone unfamiliar with the historical details of White Mountain art, I was reading the first paragraph and came upon the "1826 tragedy of the Willey family." My immediate reaction was, "What 1826 tragedy of the Willey family?" Even though you answer that question in detail later on, I would avoid introducing a new term or unexplained reference right off the bat. I would have three suggestions:

• add an explanatory phrase like "...1826 tragedy of the Willey family, in which nine people lost their lives in an avalanche."
• link this text so that it drops the reader directly to the Willey paragraph (I have to admit I don't know how to do that; also, it aborts the introduction)
• better yet, I would find a way to condense the introduction. Only the absolute essentials--the detail comes later. (Cutting is hard...adding is easy :)

Above all though, do what you (and not necessarily what I) think is right. It's a work in progress. Great job! --Worldofdew 01:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

as a reference you can link directly to a section by writing [[#section title goes here]]. As in #Recent Edits. Broken S 03:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Worldofdew 00:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Art Colony?

I'm adding this as a new section just for clarity. To what extent could North Conway in the 1850s be thought of as an "art colony"? I notice you don't use that term (and I'm not suggesting you should--I'm asking simply to learn your knowledgeable opinion). Most art colonies seem to be associated with impressionism, and while that's not the case here, there's nothing in the definition of "art colony" that restricts it to a certain artistic style. If it can be thought of as an art colony, does North Conway then lay claim to being America's first art colony? --Worldofdew 01:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added a sentence under "North Conway" to indicated that, indeed, North Conway had become the first "artist colony" in the US.JJ 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Campton & West Campton, New Hampshire also have a claim as an early art colony. E.H. Sanborn's Stag & Hounds was a gathering point beginning in the 1850's and possibly in the late 1840's. Asher Durand, W.A. Gay, Samuel Lancaster Gerry, William Trost Richards & Charles Alvah Walker were among the many artists who came to paint together. Importantly, this same locale was frequented by poets John Greenleaf Whittier, Lucy Larcom & Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in the same era... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.80.17 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

George Shavey Noyes

I deleted the addition of George Shavey Noyes. The artist is unknown to me, and, therefore, I have no knowledge that he painted in the White Mountains. JJ 12:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable White Mountain artists

I suggest that we use these Notable people guidelines before adding artists to this list. Please discuss additions on my Talk page.

Campbell has the most extensive "dictionary" of White Mountain artists. Inclusion in the list was based on our experience with the subject having seen the works of all the artists listed. In addition, using Campbell we selected those artists that had a significant body of work with White Mountain subjects. In truth, I feel the list is pretty complete. But, again, "talk" to me if you feel there is an artist missing. JJ (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

GA status reinstated

A GA review of this article has been completed, and an evaluation of the form and presentation of this article has been made in keeping with the WP criteria required for GA status. In short, the article has been found to be well written from a neutral point of view. The content is well researched, verifiable, and accompanied by numerous in-line citations, as required. The principal contributor to this article has assembled a wealth of published information on this subject and has made a major contribution to Wikipedia readers. Numerous illustrations have been added to accompany the text and all appear to have the necessary copyright clearance and documentation. Very few improvements can be recommended. These include the recommendation that more careful attention be given to Wikilinking notable artists' names and art terms that currently appear within the text, in particular those that already have WP articles that can be readily accessed. Examples include first references for Benjamin Champney, en plein air, Thomas Hill, and Edward Hill. In addition, it is recommended that more attention be given to improving the list of references by placing authors' names first and italicizing the titles of published works cited. These very minor corrections in no way detract from the major contribution made by this article and its principal contributor, both of whom deserve the gratitude of WP readers with an interest in this important area of American landscape art. Jack Bethune (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I very much appreciate your review. I believe I have made all the changes you have suggested. Please take a quick look and let me know if I have missed anything.JJ (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Because this is such a long and complex review, with lots of comments, I have archived it to Talk:White Mountain art/GA1, to prevent it from getting lost in talk page archives. You can also access the review from {{ArticleHistory}} (top of page). Dr. Cash (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on sources

I was asked to come over and comment on the sources for this article. The works listed int he Bibliography appear quite fine, mostly scholarly or specialized presses. The older stuff, from before 1900, is it being used as major underpinings of the article or is it used as contemporary "color"?

It's mostly "color." There are, however, significant quotes from The Crayon. JJ (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing, even things in the footnotes need to be sourced. So you need a source for the Champney birthdate that's given in a footnote.

Done with a quote from his autobiography. JJ (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't use http://whitemountainart.com/artist_bio_index.htm as a source for anything. As an external link, it's fine, but it wouldn't be considered a RS. It's a great external link though!

It's been used as a scholarly reference in print, so I'm still considering this suggestion. JJ (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Really though, nothing wrong at all with the sources, they look excellent to me. Keep in mind I didn't read the article itself, just checked out the sources, and looked at how "reliable" they seemed to be. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. JJ (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned edits

The edits by IP 72.224.186.142 we done by me. JJ (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference formatting

User:JohnJHenderson asked me to take a look at the Notes and Bibliography formatting. In general it's pretty good, but I do have some suggestions:

• I found the Bibliography confusing. It's counterintuitive (to me, at least) to have items alphabetized by author (books) interspersed with items alphabetized by article title (journals). I've taken a stab at splitting the journal articles from the books. If no one likes it and the decision is to revert, please don't 'lose' the ISBNs (and, in some cases, authors) that I added.

Well, I was OK with my original list, but let's go with your suggestion. I did change "Full of Facts and Sentiment" back to a journal, since Shapleigh was not the author but was the artist. JJ (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would make the Further reading section standalone rather than a subsection of References; these works were not used as references.

Done. JJ (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The citations referring to The Crayon have page numbers, but need volume/issue information.

I will make a careful review and update the references. JJ (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I added author information for a few books. Presuming I haven't made any errors, that would mean some of the citations need updating ("The Life and Works of Thomas Cole (1997) p. 66." should instead be "Noble (1997) p. 66." etc). I think the other affected books are Shapleigh and the 2nd (older) McGrath book. (As a side note - I found it rather dubious that Shapleigh himself is listed as author of a book published in 1982, but I found it consistently described as such on Amazon, WorldCat, etc.)

It is dubious. Shapliegh died in 1906! I have changed the bibliographic entry accordingly. JJ (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Those were the main issues I saw. I have to mention that I haven't yet read the full article, but I'm looking forward to it - I spent a good bit of time in the mountains years ago - and I'd be happy to give it a full copyedit if it's headed to FAC soon. Let me know. Maralia (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate a full copyedit. Thanks. JJ (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Henry Turner

(this discussion transferred to here from Rotational's talk page)

You added Charles Henry Turner to the list of notable White Mountain artists. Turner did paint in the White Mountains, but he is not, in my opinion, "notable" as the others are. I had requested that others "talk" to me before adding names to this list. Can you tell me why you feel Turner belongs on this list? Thanks. JJ (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments about this topic at on the Talk page for White Mountain art. Turner is not even listed in Campbell's book. Let's discuss. JJ (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't think that "notable" has a very objective basis, but in my opinion he is quite "notable". Is his inclusion here a mistake? ciao Rotational (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments on Notable White Mountain Artists here. The significant issue is "large body of work." If using my site were the criteria, I would have over four hundred names. A "notable list" is not a complete list. If someone reads the article and wants more information, I refer them to White Mountain Art. Again, why do you feel Turner should be on a list of notable White Mountain artists? Do you have examples of his White Mountain subjects? I have been maintaining the site on the subject for ten years, and I don't have a single example (although I know some, but not a large number, exist). JJ (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there again, I don't think that "large body of work" is a good criterion of "notability" - I started an article on him, which means that I feel he's sufficiently well-known to merit a WP page. No, I don't know any of his White Mountain paintings, but you say that you know of some, so that the question is really irrelevant. Finally, I think that you are perfectly entitled to control your pesonal White Mountain website, but WP policy encourages participation by multiple editors. ciao Rotational (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The basic requirement for establishing notability, according to WP guidelines here, is if he or she has been the subject of published. secondary source material that is reliable and intellectually independent. Sources that are derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. Could you first cite some secondary or other sources that actually place Turner in the White Mountain School of art? Thanks, Jack Bethune (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems that there are two issues here - firstly, Charles Henry Turner's claim to notability and secondly whether he produced paintings of the White Mountains area. Both can be settled by the rather pedestrian means of doing a Google search - the venerable Smithsonian lists archival material here and states that "He summered in Hampton, and later in the White Mountains at Jackson." I presume that like most painters he didn't work on his stamp collection, but actually did some painting. User:JohnJHenderson says he knows about some White Mountains paintings done by Turner. How did you get drawn into this? ciao Rotational (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Smithsonian archive appears to place Turner in the White Mountains, but not in the White Mountain School of art. Presuming he belongs there would not be acceptable scholarship for WP. You'll need to cite a reliable published source confirming Turner as an active member of the WMS, after which the question of notability can be approached. Based on what's been presented as evidence thus far, Turner appears to lack basic membership, not just notability. Have you checked any reference books on American art or artists? Might be worthwhile doing so, since the results could greatly help Turner's case. Hope this helps. Jack Bethune (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! I didn't make that presumption. I was citing his presence there as a good reason for thinking that he produced paintings up there as well - which it seems he did. See here for a reference. This is all a storm in a teacup - I really couldn't give a fig whether John Henderson feels that Turner merits inclusion in his list or not. You still haven't explained your involvement in this....... ciao Rotational (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The definitive reference on White Mountain painters is Catherine Campbell's book, New Hampshire Scenery. Turner is not even listed as one of the over 400 artists who painted in the White Mountains. Further, the "notable" list is not meant to be a complete list. I have seen hundreds of WM paintings, and I have never seen one White Mountain painting by Turner. As I stated before, all the people in my list have a large body of work with White Mountain subjects. After all, that's the topic of this article. I agree that Turner was an artist (primarily of portraits). No one knowledgeable about this subject would call him a notable White Mountain artist. Rotational himself can give not a single example of a Turner White Mountain painting. IMO, this is just one person trying to push an agenda for an artist he happens to like? know of?

Who is Jack? He and I have also had this discussion regarding "representative" Hudson River School painters. What these battles do is weaken what I believe to be a strong article. JJ (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Catherine Campbell's book and wonder who decided to term it a "definitive reference". If Turner is not mentioned in her book, then one can only see that as a careless omission. The Hampton Historical Society obviously does not see him as a minor painter. I see that the "notable" list of painters started off simply as "Artists of the White Mountains". You may never have seen any White Mountains paintings by Turner, "although I know some, but not a large number". Are you confused? I certainly am. Of course Turner was an artist - I don't think he needs anyone's grudging agreement to make him so. That he painted landscapes is undoubted (see the Hampton Historical Society reference above). That you choose to ignore him makes for a flawed article, not a strong one. Notability, as I've stated before, is very subjective, and should be seen in the same light as maturity - if you agree with my views, you're mature. "Agenda", makes this discussion sound politically sinister - this is supposed to be a discussion? Nevertheless, I see your friend Jack has taken it upon himself to remove the offending name without further ado. ciao Rotational (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you do not know of Catherine Campbell's book, you are unfamiliar with the subject - White Mountain art. Turner may be a "careless omission" after her scholarship in producing over 400 biographical entries each with a list of each artist's White Mountain paintings. We are not talking about whether Turner was a minor or major painter. That has nothing to do with my list. I changed its title intentionally (after much discussion). The article was not a place for over 400 names. I chose on this talk page to define "notable" as having a significant body of paintings of White Mountain subjects. I have never seen a Turner White Mountain subject of any kind. I have him on my Website, since there is a known painting with a White Mountain subject documented in the exhibition record of the Boston Art Club. Virtually all of Turner's documented paintings are portraits. This is not about Turner, whom I have never denied was an artist of some recognition. I can't seem to make it clear that Turner is not in the same category as Benjamin Champney, Frank Shapleigh, or any of the others on my list. He simply is one of many, many painters who painted in the White Mountains, but he has no extensive body of work with White Mountain subjects. This is a discussion (although a frustrating one). And, it's not about maturity. I end where I started - Rotational has no knowledge on the subject having never even heard of the definitive reference on White Mountain art. JJ (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You tend to respond to difficulties like a politician - you ignore them. Unlike you, I have never claimed to be an authority on White Mountain art and this exchange was about one artist who happened not to fit criteria devised by you. What I do find disturbing is inconsistency, bad reasoning, arrogance and rudeness - and the "discussion" so far has been riddled with examples of the same. You seem to have a very low tolerance for other contributors and their contributions - witness your agitation at my temerity for adding the name of an artist without first clearing it with you, or the alacrity with which you reverted the list of names to two columns because it was someone else's idea. WP can only improve with the considered input of many editors and becoming overly-territorial about this article will not enhance its quality. Do read the guidelines on ownership and good luck in your efforts. Rotational (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We have several works by Charles Henry Turner, including two which are of the White Mountains. In turn, Sam & Sheila Robbins showed a Turner watercolor in their White Mountain exhibit at Castle in the Clouds during the 2008 season. Turner's work has been exhibited and published in 2006 in the "Visions in Granite" exhibition at The Banks Gallery and book cited in the bibliography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.80.17 (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you sign your posts? It's easy to determine that this comes from a Morgan Stanley server. What's your agenda? And, the book you mention was first added with a non-author as an author. See me comment on this here. Further, and one more time, I recognize that Turner painted in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. But, the criterion is notable. Are you, the anonymous poster, saying he was notable? If so, make your case and sign your post. JJ (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Visions in Granite

An anonymous editor added this bibliographic reference. By checking the ISBN reference, any reader will note that Douglas Nelson is not the co-author of this catalog. For example, just click here. Therefore, I have updated the reference for accuracy and reformatted for consistency. In the future, please avoid anonymous edits. JJ (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, I object to this entry in this article on scholarship grounds and would be willing to discuss, in detail, why. In brief, it's the use of unsigned paintings of questionable authorship and paintings of questionable subject. But, I'm not willing, just yet, to go to the mat on this. JJ (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Boston Art Club

This link is added under See Also, but the editor deletes references to WhiteMountainArt.com from the Boston Art Club article. What gives? Would the editor please identify himself, and try to justify his edits? JJ (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White Mountain art. 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/20051218103807/http://www.whitemountainart.com/index.html to http://whitemountainart.com/index.html

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) 03:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)