Talk:20th-century Western painting

Image overhaul

This article is undergoing a major change concerning imagery per [1]...Modernist (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

Current numbers of FU images down from 51 to 43...Modernist (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

A template was added to the top of the page claiming excessive or improper use of copyrighted material. The editor who placed the template should indicate which images are excessive and which copyrighted material is being improperly used. Otherwise, the template should be removed. freshacconci talktalk 18:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:JuanGris.Portrait of Picasso.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JuanGris.Portrait of Picasso.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apparatus and hand.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Apparatus and hand.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Apparatus and hand.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 20th-century Western painting. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts

I see a content dispute here between two respected editors. Could you maybe discuss it here instead of edit-warring? Maybe if you lay out your positions I can help you to find a compromise. --John (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, I've referenced that section now, and if needed I can add more references. HW always objects to the use of contemporary art imagery, no matter that the images are relevant, important and are accompanied by Fair Use Rationales which are required by the foundation. The Foundation made exception a long time ago to accommodate images of contemporary art. I used to have these conversations with Tyrenius who I still wish was around; however the images have rationales and should remain...Modernist (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist's argument here is his usual line of "Wolfowitz bad". The WMF nenver made a blanket exception for "contemporary art imagery"; its licensing resolution says only that EDP's may (not must) allow very limited use of nonfree content when dealing with contemporary works. It definitely does not exempt that content from the general restrictions of the EDP. But that's not terribly relevant here. The current dispute is over 1) whether opinions can be presented as fact, and 2) whether unreferenced statements of opinion may be included in articles at all. This is just Verifiability 101 -- basic provisions of our core content policies, especially WP:RS and WP:V, prohibit such content.

Also note that Modernist insists he may delete content without discussion and consensus, even though other users may not [2]. That's just a flagrant violation of WP:OWN principles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all regarding this subject HW seems not to understand this subject. Basic common sense and a general understanding of contemporary art would underscore the widely understood phrasing HW reverted. There is a strong basis for the need of imagery for contemporary art; visual art needs to be seen, and the essential meaning of what he deletes without sufficient understanding is widespread. On the other hand if he disagrees with something and thinks it needs references or better references then as any competent editor he should know how to properly ask for referencing; - really not hard to do. Regarding Arthur Danto who became absolutely synonymous with plurality in the art world during the several years before his death - for this editor to remove that reference is totally indicative of how little he knows of this subject. Likewise for the widely informative reference by the Getty museum...Modernist (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, we know, Wolfowitz bad. But unless you have a policy-based argument (which you clearly don't), you can't present opinion as fact, whether it's held by Arthur Danto, Arthur Koestler, or Arthur the anthropomorphic aardvark, And you certainly can't present unreferenced opinion as fact. This is still just Verifiability 101, which you seem to be striving for a failing grade in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you don't have a clue regarding the visual arts - move on...Modernist (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take your hate driven bullshit somewhere else...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz—why can't opinion be stated as fact? In the visual arts there are prevailing opinions. You mean the reader can't be apprised of prevailing opinions? It is certainly true that prevailing opinions can be bogus. But that only calls for the introduction to the article of differing opinions. It is an understatement to say there are a wide variety of styles in the 20th century in the visual arts. It is "opinions" that try to make sense of the bewildering proliferation of forms assumed by works of visual art. And it is opinion that lends support to the value seen by some in the most bizarre creations by visual artists. How can sense be made of an all-white canvas? How about an all-black canvas? How about the painting that involves throwing paint at the canvas? There is an opinion to support that too. There are also opinions that undermine the validity of the paintings that result from throwing paint at canvas. And why is a Campbell's Soup Can art? I don't get it. And even if I do accept it as art—is it good art? Correct me if I am wrong but anything voiced about this is "opinion". There are prevailing opinions and secondary opinions. In my opinion the article is best written by presenting the counterpoints between differing opinions. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV is quite clear: Avoid stating opinions as facts. It clearly governs, and may not be weakened or exceptions allowed by local consensus. This is not even remotely open to dispute, and it is astonishing to see an experienced editor staking out a contrary position. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz—opinions matter in the humanities. The humanities are different in this regard from more objective fields such as the sciences. The historical body of work that is held up as fine art is merely an expression of opinion. Like it or not—there is nothing of an objective nature that can support the worth of a painting such as The Mona Lisa, and The Mona Lisa, in this regard, is no different from The Campbell's Soup Cans. Opinions matter inordinately in the visual arts. This is "False Start". It is made by Jasper Johns, a living artist. It sold for 80 million dollars. That's a lot of money. Can anything be said about that painting that is not opinion? Opinions matter. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're still fighting a straw man. Opinions can't be stated as facts, in Wikipedia's voice, nor may an editor-preferred critic be privileged to be the exclusive viewpoint on a matter covered in this (or any other article). Most articles on the arts manage to maintain these principles without great difficulty, and there's no basis for making an exception here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which case you would want to weigh in with a countervailing opinion supported by another reliable source. What you are doing instead is removing sourced material. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not when a cited (academic) source treats the opinion as dubious/debateable. There are times when it's better to say nothing than to say something that's not adequately supported. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Wolfowitz presents himself as the victim, then accuses other editors of being 'bad'. Such an attitude scores no points and serves only to frustrate editors who have the misfortune of crossing paths with her/him. Art needs to be seen. Modernist is correct on this point. The limited use of nonfree (low resolution) images is precisely for this purpose. Opinions need to be made, as Bus stop makes clear. Citations to such opinions are obviously important; whether following each sentence or at the end of a paragraph. Coldcreation (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC) 17:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, Wolfowitz very bad. But that doesn't justing your casting aspersions or rejecting utterly clear policy requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You want policy? Read this: WP:CONSENSUS and take a hike, and stay off this article. You are totally wrong regarding what you say are clear policy regulations - you are not a policy maker, and your interpretations of policy as the pertain to this article are wrong, and you have no consensus, and you have no knowledge of this subject and you are simply obsessed with your project of deleting what you don't like...Modernist (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Storm and fury, signifying nothing. NPOV is quite clear, and is, expressly, "non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus". WP:CONSENSUS does not authorize small groups of editors to override core principles like NPOV on individual articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and restored sourced material and added sources to those sections that previously lacked citations. Still working on it. To all editors: Do not remove any material until the process is complete. Coldcreation (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Josef Albers's painting 'Homage to the Square', 1965.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Robert Mangold's acrylic and pencil 'X Within X Orange', 1981.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Newman-Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Oil painting "New England Elegy" at the John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts LCCN2010720575.tif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Robert Rauschenberg, Tracer, 1963 11 20 17 -sfmoma (40482628341).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]