File talk:Nancy Macko Meadow 2015.jpg

Dispute of Non-free use of File:Nancy Macko Meadow 2015.jpg

I disagree with the placement of a non-compliance tag on the image and argue that it does comply with both of the non-free content criteria cited (Criteria 3a and 8).

Criteria 8 reads: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

I contend that art represents a special case among fields regarding both the use of images for understanding and the use of non-free content. Art is likely the most visual of fields—in most cases almost solely visual, without recourse to textual elements such as the scripted or written narratives, dialogue and descriptions of film, television or literature, for instance. Unlike those media, its forms and workings can be difficult to convey even in the best text without the supplemental, direct evidence of images, which at once convey a multitude of qualities (color, form, gesture, pattern, composition, style, subject, etc.). Images are not only indispensable, but possibly even more important than text for understanding particular artists, their development, and multiple bodies of work. This is particularly so, because the notability of any individual artist arises from and is rooted in their individual works versus the bare facts of their exhibition list, awards, collections, etc. These secondary effects derive from the quality, originality and innovation of the works, which need to be seen to be understood. Omitting images from artist articles is severely detrimental to their effective communication.

With regard to the use of non-free content, art is also singular in that artworks are unique and can only be represented as they are—a substitute object or image cannot stand in for the actual work without misrepresenting it. However, because the value of artworks rests on this uniqueness, artists are extremely unlikely to upload them as free content. It would potentially damage their livelihood (as recognized by non-free content criteria #2). This makes the use of properly uploaded, low-resolution non-free images necessary in order to fulfill Wikipedia's goal of providing high-quality encyclopedic content and understanding.

Criteria 3a reads: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

Regarding criteria 3a, it is very unlikely that one image could "convey equivalent significant information" compared to multiple images for most artist articles. Most artist articles describe careers that span three, four, five or more decades, involving many—often divergent—bodies of work, media and styles. For example (as in this case), a single artist might at various points produce sculpture, video, installation art, drawings and paintings, and photography. Artists' work also develops over time—often significantly—sometimes moving through completely different styles (e.g., abstraction versus realism). Many artists are equally known for very different bodies of work. It would be impossible to convey such contrasts, variations and evolutions within a single image. As a result, using a single image in an artist article can not only result in the omission of crucial information, but actually may distort understanding, misinforming readers.

In the particular case of this file, the omission of this image would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the article topic—specifically the unique medium, body of work, style and period in the artist's career that it represents, as well as the visual information that only an image can communicate. Because of the developments and variations in the artist's work, it conveys significant information that is not conveyed in another image or equivalently by the text. -- Mianvar1 20:23 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is this particular image critical to the reader's understanding of the article? Why is it placed right below the infobox and not in the "Flora and bee-focused work (2008–present)" section? — Ирука¹³ 21:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)