Talk:Art Institute of Chicago

Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise

THis painting was listed as being housed here but on it's page it is listed as being in washington DC. I don't think it's at the AIC. I have removed it but someone should double check me on this. Infact the list of housed paintings should be checked by someone in the know. Dannygutters 19:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This iconic painting(also called The Rower's Lunch) is part of the permanent collection of the Museum of the Art Institute of Chicago. It will travel to the Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas, in the summer of 2008. Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise (The Rower's Lunch) should not be confused with Luncheon of the Boating Party. (Rodney Hutton, rjhuttondfw@sbcglobla.net) March 19, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.149.105 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Would Like to See More History

Although a good introduction to the AIC today, this article ignores virtually all of the institution's history, including its former close ties to the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (which pre-dates it) and interesting curatorial controversies of the past. It needs more information to be really encyclopedic. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Museum's Collection

I think a more full list of the museum's notable collection is needed, possibly in bullet point form. For example, major pieces like de Kooning's Excavation and Bacon's Figure with Meat are completely missing from the page. 71.201.132.221 (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try to draft a list of "important" works in the collection, especially works which already have Wikipedia pages. This has the potential to be very contentious, so I'll post here first and seek comments. Everyone please contribute since I have my own biases towards the types of art I like and have knowledge about; other opinions are needed to help round out the list. Mosfet007 (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Major Overhaul

I'm beginning a major overhaul of this page. Some of the information is out of date or incomplete and there are major bits of information missing. The organization can use some work, too. This will be a multi-step process, but I'll work as quickly as I can so the page doesn't sit in limbo for too much longer. If anyone has anything you'd like to see added/subtracted/expanded/fixed and don't know how to do it, let me know here and I'll see what I can do. I'm a Chicago resident and a member of the Art Institute, so *hopefully* I can track down some of the answers.Mosfet007 (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does the article start on FN 2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.250.85.65 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ferris Bueller at the Art Institute

• John Hughes commentary - The Museum scene from Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

This is a very moving tribute to the Institute by Hughes. The scene from the film shows many of the Institute's greatest works. Perhaps it may be of use in the article. It's a great scene anyway. --TS 02:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's only been two years, but what the hell! I've taken the plunge and added a reference. --TS 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Deleting valid and important images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your interpretation of NFCC#8, no valid article-specific NFCC rationale - is dead wrong and IMO verges on vandalism. The policy states Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. This painting precisely needs to be seen to increase readers understanding of the topic. Don't do it again. The image is specifically mentioned in the text about the art collection, the image is of an important part of the art collection and in case you don't know - this is an article about an art museum. Visual art needs to be seen - read WP:NFCC more carefully..Modernist (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense; we've been through similar arguments at length regarding other articles. You don't need to see a nonfree image of the painting to understand that it's in the museum's collection; text alone is sufficient to convey the point. NFCC8 violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree -- an image of, in the words of the article, the "famous" painting -- substantially increases reader's understanding of this museum collection and reader's understanding would be harmed without it. The point isn't that it's any painting; the point is that it is this painting that looks like this, and famously conveys this mood, moment, time, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the image Nighthawks clearly has contextual significance in the article Art Institute of Chicago. Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Visual art needs to be seen, don't revert again...Modernist (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

We're not an art gallery - we are an encyclopedia with a free content mission that seeks to minimize non-free use. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• The only nonsense is your misreading of NFCC8; you do not own some right from on high to delete valid and important visual art...Modernist (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Since we are already linking to the famous work(s) at the exhibit, the reader's understanding is not improved by showing the works here. Unless the work itself can be described by sources to be a keystone foundation of the exhibit (not just an important work), such as the Mona Lisa is with the Louver, then the display of the image is not aiding the understanding of the article. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem—you say "Unless the work itself can be described by sources to be a keystone foundation of the exhibit (not just an important work), such as the Mona Lisa is with the Louver, then the display of the image is not aiding the understanding of the article." From where do you derive this? Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

NFCC#8 - we only use non-free if its presence helps the reader understand the topic, and its absence would harm the reader's understand. There's zero harm for not including non-free images of famous works housed by the museum if they are not critical to the museum's success - they are just pretty images that NFC doesn't support. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It does aid understanding of the article, one can hardly understand exhibition without seeing it. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

But its absence doesn't harm understanding the topic of the AIC, so NFCC#8 fails. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Its absence would harm understanding, especially since the institution exists for this purpose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It exists only to display Nighthawks? Its purpose is to display art. Nighthawks happens to be one of the more famous works the museum holds, but there are no source that show that the AIC's importance revolves around this one painting. It is just one of many 100s of famous works it holds. The user doesn't need to see Nighthawks here to see that. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What is Nighthawks, without seeing it. And yes it exists to own, care for, and display Nighthawks. It does not have to be its only purpose. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We have an article on Nighthawks so the reader, if curious, can see it (and it is actually used in several other articles where I don't question its use as an important piece of American contemporary art). Several other famous pieces of art are listed and actually shown in the gallery (those that are free, natch), there's no reason to highlight Nighthawks over these besides opinions here. Any of the free images can serve the same purpose here as the non-free of Nighthawks. The case you are describing is exactly a unacceptable non-free use listed under #6. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it passes 8, so you have moved to 6. But 6 does not apply because it is not just used to illustrate a passage about the painting (although it felicitously does that too). It is used, as it has been used, to convey understanding about the institution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 is policy, WP:NFC#UUI is a different page. It is being used to illustrate a passage about a painting where we have an article about the painting itself. Thus this is unallowable. There is no information about the AIC shown by this image. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Of course, there is information about the art museum, shown by its art. It is allowed by policy because the overriding purpose is to educate about that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

BS. We already have an article about Nighthawks where the educational value of the painting is beyond question. But there's no educational value showing it here that outweighs the free content mission and NFC. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So, you have no argument that you have to descend to vulgarity. At any rate, this use is about educating about this museum where this "icon" is held. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I would further argue that the passage that is used there is better illustrated with File:Georges Seurat - Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte.jpg which I suspect more people will remember and associate with the AIC due to the pop culture ref in Ferris Bueller while still demonstrating the type of artwork the AIC displays. Thus NFCC#1 is also failed. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The painting is discussed in the text; the painting needs to be seen to be properly appreciated; the painting is an important part of the collection and an important part of the culture of the United States - These regulations are written and re-written, interpreted and re-interpreted time and again by the image project. Frankly WP:IAR WP:CS has to inform these absurd infraction regulations that do not do anything but hurt this project. Paintings and works of visual art need to be seen...Modernist (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The article on AIC is not the proper place to "appreciate" the Nighthawks painting; that's on the Nighthawks article, and other articles about the painter and the place the painting has in art history/American contemporary art. This article use is about learning about the AIC, not about the painting. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't see it mentioned, so participants of this conversation may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Nighthawks.jpg. czar · · 01:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) If their Nighthawks acquisition was worthy of significant coverage in the article, it would make sense to include it with its caption as is. Right now, it has two sentences. Its inclusion isn't vital to understanding any part of the article—that's the basic "non-free image use" litmus test it fails. If more was added on Nighthawks (which could be useful and not particularly WP:UNDUE), I could see a case for its inclusion. czar · · 01:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Even were "vitalness" anywhere required, an icon of American Art in an American Art museum, is vital to understanding the institution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem - The Art Institute of Chicago is one of the five most important museums in the United States; Edward Hopper is one of the most important American painters of the 20th century; Nighthawks is arguably his most highly regarded painting and of course it must be included in this article in the section about the museum collection...Modernist (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As to this discussion: Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Nighthawks.jpg - looks a little like a little kid who wants his toys; it looks like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT so if I can't delete every image I want to, I'll just report the whole thing to my superiors...Modernist (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

To both Alanscottwalker and Modernist, there is zero need to show a non-free image of a work which has its own article to understand the institution that houses it if there is no critical discussion of the importance of the work to the institute backed by sources. The article does not suffer understanding if the image is not displayed, given the fact that the image is used in at least 6 other articles including one dedicated to its own article. This is standard policy and the very foundation of why NFCC#8 is present, to avoid trying to justify image inclusion without sources or discussion to back it up. Nighthawks is well represented across numerous other articles where its educational value is must stronger, but there is simply no essential education value here. Again, NFC is mandated by the Foundation, this completely breaks that mandate. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It breaks no mandate of the Foundation. Your argument that it is used everywhere else, so it cannot be used here is perverse. The iconic image's use here is justified by educational value to this article, the sources, and common sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Completely agree with Masem. We've been through a similar argument elsewhere. Non-free images should be used very sparingly and not a free-for-all. If the artworks have their own Wikipedia article then put the non-free images there. If they are wikilinked from here the reader can easily see the image (or search the Institute's website). Sionk (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes it is a problem. WP:NFCC#3a asks for minimal use to follow on the Foundation's mandate to use non-free images for only exceptional purposes. Using Nighthawks on the article about the work itself, or on the painter - clearly a reasonable use. On the articles about the various schools of art (like Western painting, or Night in painting) it stands as a recognized example, and while not as strong an example, is completely fair. There is no need to see this image to understand anything about AIC - if you are already familiar with the painting, you'll recognize it by the name in the prose, and if you're not, you'll have to read the prose and/or clickthru to the article to learn more; in either case, the AIC article understanding is not changed by this image inclusion. Again, if the goal is to showcase the classics that the AIC hosts, there's several free images sitting at the bottom of the page that can be used instead. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem - this is our second conversation of the day as you know - regarding the image of Marilyn Monroe and regarding this painting by Edward Hopper your arguments are essentially the same - and legitimate by the way - you argued that the Monroe article did not discuss her nude 1953 calender/Playboy image enough and so the image was therefore unnecessary; and here you argue that this article does not discuss Nighthawks enough to merit its inclusion. The article however does discuss Nighthawks and instead of deleting it - what may be required is a request for added text. Just ask that text be amplified - if that is what in fact is needed. Frankly the few sentences of text accompanied by the painting is educational and standard for an article about a major museum...Modernist (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

But not discussed in a critical manner that requires the reader to see the image to understand the context given. Just because it exists doesn't require visualization under our NFC policy. If the text can be expanded - specifically in the direction to explain the importance of Nighthawks to the vitality/attraction/importance of AIC - then we're talking about a possible educational use, but just saying the AIC got it for $3000 doesn't require a picture to see that. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sionk - you are totally wrong - the two arguments are not the same. The argument re the list article has nothing - nothing to do with this issue...Modernist (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The use of the non-free artwork is used sparingly, it is an American icon of this American institution's collection and of American Art, in the article about its collection, and there is no other museum with this art. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Nighthawks.jpg is used in 6 articles - that is not "sparingly". (#3a applies both to single articles and across article space). --MASEM (t) 02:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Justified is justified, and this sparing use here is justified. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. This is 100% a violation of non-free content policy under several factors. The only argue to keep is "it looks nice." --MASEM (t) 02:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It is no violation and no one has argued it looks nice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Here I disagree Masem and you know that we are not arguing that it looks nice - my argument is that it is an important part of the collection and seeing it is worth a thousand words - and if I understand what you are saying - you need to read a thousand (or less) more words. To which I do not disagree. The painting needs more text in order to justify its inclusion...Modernist (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

But there are 100s of works that the AIC holds. Is Nighthawks that much of a keystone piece that the AIC considers it that important? (It might be, and if it is, those sources can be included to justify the inclusion). If it is not a keystone piece, then arguing to show that image over any of the other works (including the numerous free images we have) to demonstrate the type of works the museum holds is against NFC policy; we can do that with a free image. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not about the type of work it holds, its about the work it actually holds. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a convoluted argument that the image of the artwork is of limited significance to the article on the museum because the raison d'être of the museum is to house exceedingly significant objects. Bus stop (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think both cases (if you could call it that) have been laid out. Let's let other people chime in now because this isn't going anywhere. Otherwise, I see a consensus leaning towards its removal. czar · · 02:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Both the American Gothic and The Child's Bath are mentioned in the same sentence as "the most important works of the American collection" and there are free images available for these. The solution would be to use a free image to illustrate the 'Collection' section, rather than a non-free image. There are free equivalents available, per point (1) of WP:NFCC. The only thing of any additional note about Nighthawks is its sale price to the Art Institute. Sionk (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sionk—do you really think the sale price of $3,000 is "of … note"? "Contextual significance" refers to significance in context. The $3,000 price tag is hardly if at all significant in this context. But the image of the prized object in this museum's collection is significant in this context. We are talking about visual art. This is not an Exploded view drawing of some functional device. If this image was non-free and we were considering its placement in an article, we would probably demand a high degree of relevant text in the article in which this image was being considered for placement. The $3,000 price tag that is mentioned in this article does not support the placement of this image in this article. It is its value and significance as accorded by knowledgeable authorities that support its placement in the article on the museum that has this painting in its collection. Bus stop (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The other two paintings are important "prize objects" too. There are free images of them. Use them instead. In fact the great claims of importance of Nighthawks is uncited (and copy-pasted from the other Wikipedia article). It wasn't cited in the Nighthawks article either. So "its value and significance as accorded by knowledgeable authorities" needs to be proven significantly above the importance of the other works, before use of the non-free image is justified. Sionk (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Added text is needed, that has been established...Modernist (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW The image is important - we need important visual art to be seen. You may not be aware the image hunters removed American Gothic from this article when I added it in April 2009, they went ballistic and deleted it; which ultimately resulted in its current status...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You've made that argument several times, but it runs counter to Wikipedia's policy on copyright and use of non-free material. I'm a photographer and painter and I'd go ballistic too if copyrighted images of my work were used freely across the internet. Though in the case of Nighthawks the image rights will be far more valuable, of course. Sionk (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree at all with that interpretation of policy. Whats more this is used for educational purposes...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No one denies that visual art has to be seen to be appreciated. But in light of our non-free policy, that visual image needs to be limited to where we are actually talking about the art in a critical manner so that being seen will help one appreciate the text. This is not the current case at AIC - it's a work in their exhibit but one does not need to see that image to appreciate the AIC itself. If it was the case that Nighthawks did not have its own article but was considered a key work of the museum, hey, there might be something, but we have a completely separate page that is detailed about the work where appreciation via its image is better suited and better meets our NFC policy. This is why the argument above about this being compariable to the list of of woman painters - the topic is not about the appreciation of the art but the artists so showing the art where it harms non-free content is inappropriate. Here, the case is that we want to highlight the AIC, the appreciation of the art is not the role of this article. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW The image has been included here - rightfully - since 4 or 5 edits after the article was created in January-February 2007. As a point of fact - my first edit to this article was in August 2008 and I did not add this image to this article...Modernist (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The appreciation of art is the point of this article by the way...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The point of this article is to describe the Art Institute of Chicago in an out the same encylopedic manner. Illustrations of artworks in its collection, though desirable, are not essential. In any case, there are already 29 images of paintings in the article, so plenty of opportunity to appreciate images of the art! Sionk (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Of couse, it's both desirable and educational, which is why it's used. Moreover, the idea that you can just substitute one piece of art for another is absurd. We substantially increase understanding of this subject by seeing its collection, and we harm understanding when we do not. This is especially true in the case of a one-of-a-kind masterpiece. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The contextual significance of the painting Nighthawks in the Art Institute of Chicago article could hardly be overstated. The call for text in the article relating to this painting is misguided. Mere text is not what creates "contextual significance". This can be most clearly seen in this instance, in which under consideration is an iconic work of visual art. The demand for text to accompany that image is totally beside the point because no quantity or quality of text equals the standalone importance of the painting. All images are not the same, obviously. Some images serve purposes, and those purposes require justification. If this image were a non-free image, we would want to see text in the article strongly relating to that image. Such a use of non-free image can only be justified if the verbal portion of the article strongly interrelated to that image. But with visual art we already have the importance of the image established in the pantheon of important paintings, sculptures, etc. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Text is required to create contextual significance (hint, there's "text" in the word "contextual"). And we have to do this for non-free content to meet the free mission goals with exceptional use of non-free; if the image were free, we wouldn't be here at all barring issues of MOS/page layout. No one has stated why Nighthawks is so critical to understanding the collection the AIC has, just that it is an important work. I've argued above that the Seurat painting is just as good as a recognizable image, in the collective pop culture (through Ferris Bueller) and is a free image that satisfactorily demonstrates the scope of the AIC's collection. Those that want to keep Nighthawks need to challenge that with sourced discussion of why this piece is so critical to AIC. I don't question Nighthawks is a critical piece of art - it has its own article, it's highlighted on the artist's page, and it is an appropriate image to use to represent contemporary Western art on the various genre/schools articles. But why it is important to AIC moreso than any of the other paintings or works the museum holds is simply not demonstrated. A free image can do exactly the same job that the image of Nighthawks does to represent the significant works the collection holds.
Again, those coming from the visual arts project need to remember that our inclusion is not "fair use" based, but the stronger requirement of non-free. We want important visual artwork that is notable to be shown and have (if necessary) non-free images of them to go along with discussion about the art work. But our project cannot support frivolous use of non-free images as decorative elements in other topic spaces where it may be fine if it was fair use (this would be such a case) but fails the Foundation Resolution and NFC policy since contextual significance is not established. It may be the case that in art school textbooks and reports that lots of art is used to help illustrate the article, but our requirements are much higher, and as a tertiary source and an encyclopedia, we're not here to replicate what these other reliable sources should be doing for us. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You say "Text is required to create contextual significance". Please quote the policy language supportive of that. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 is all about "contextual significance" , and since the definition of "contextual" is "in context", we consider the image in the context of our articles, which are all prose/text based. And per the Foundation "They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content." --MASEM (t) 17:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Contextual significance doesn't even mention text: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, this seems to have reached a stalemate. We should probably wait for others to comment. But I too don't see how the central importance of a painting in an encyclopedia article can be proven without text (and supporting verification, of course). There's no Wikipedia policy that allows reliance on telepathy! I have a feeling there aren't a lot (or any sources) that say "Nighthawks is the most important work in the Art Institute of Chicago's collection". I can't even see such a statement on their website. Sionk (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sionk—"Nighthawks" doesn't have to be "the most important work in the Art Institute of Chicago's collection". The salient fact is that it is "in the Art Institute of Chicago's collection". This creates "contextual significance". In the context of an article about the "Art Institute of Chicago", the painting "Nighthawk" has significance. Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. Non-free use is limited to "exceptional" circumstances. If Nighthawks is considered - in context of AIC - as just another work (an important one of painting but no more important than any other work to AIC), then using the image over a free one is allowed by the Foundation as no exceptional circumstance has been identified. Otherwise, we might has well just have a gallery of images of every work - free or otherwise - plastered on the article every gallery page. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem—You say "Non-free use is limited to 'exceptional' circumstances." Please link to policy language supportive of that. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at it from the other direction: unacceptable use of non-free images, per WP:NFC, point 6, "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)" Sionk (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That has alraedy been addressed: "6 does not apply because it is not just used to illustrate a passage about the painting (although it felicitously does that too). It is used, as it has been used [for more than half a decade in this article], to convey understanding about the institution." Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how long its been there, its a problem discovered now and needs to be replaced. And yes, the text given is presently only used to illustrate the passage about the sale price of the painting to the AIC and not the importance of the painting to AIC, so the claim against #6 is not supported. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem has been discovered. Moreover, it does and has conveyed understanding about the institution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's some contextual text - from the NGA - [7] - from the CAI - [8] - CAI again - [9] and the CAI again - [10]...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Of the four, the only one that even begins to establish the importance of Nighthawks at the AIC is the third one, and that's more from the importance of the AIC to Hopper, not the picture to the AIC. All good sources for the article on Nighthawks but not for justifying its inclusion here. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I do agree - that the third one asserts what is needed - after all it is an exhibition at the Art Institute long after the picture was acquired. I added the Hopper quote as caption to the image. I think it adds significant context as an important understanding concerning the addition to the museum - given it's enormous popularity with the public...Modernist (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If another museum had gotten it (say, one of the New York ones), do you think that Hopper would not say the same thing? Basically, AIC is just a name drop here and not a critical facet from the standpoint of the AIC. On Nighthawks, hell yes, that 3rd one is a good one to include where we are talking the importance of the picture. But we've still not established why this picture, among all the others named, needs to violate NFC and not use a free example to demonstrate the extent of the AIC's collection. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course - given the urban nature of the picture and the fact that it depicts a scene in a diner along Greenwich Avenue in NYC I'm sure Hopper would have been ecstatic if it went to the Met or to MoMA; although maybe a little blasé if it went to the Whitney; however it went to Chicago - and it defines the Art Institute; along with American Gothic, and Bathers by the River and the Caillebotte painting - everybody knows that...although strangely enough it always reminded me of a diner in San Francisco I used to go to near the bus station back in '64...Modernist (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"it defines the Art Institute". Where is the source for this? This is the question that we have been asking. And if you say that American Gothic equally defines it, then the non-free image can be replaced by the free image for the same encyclopedic & educational value. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Are you using me as the source? If I say...Modernist (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You are using your word as the source of the face "it defines the Art Institute". We need a source to make that clear to even consider using the image for that purpose. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Art on the entry for the Art Institute of Chicago says Nighthawks is a "celebrated masterpiece" of this museum. Moreover, it's clearly [http://www.amazon.com/Art-Institute-Chicago-20th-Century-Sculpture/dp/0865590966/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367321858&sr=1-4 identified in the literature as extremely important in, even symbolic of, the 20th century collection of the Art Institute.] Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is finally starting to get at the heart of the matter. I can't check exactly what these sources say, but agf in that they are placing the importance of Nighthawks, moreso than any other work they host, in the AIC collection from the viewpoint of AIC (the topic of this article). It would be helpful to have the full quotes from the above sources to judge this. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For example, unfortunately unable to read the whole thing, but [11] is a hit from Google News archives, from the DEnver Post, which, in the Gnews blurb, says "Over the past 10 or 15 years, "Nighthawks" has become a greater draw for visitors, ... PHOTO: The Associated Press /The Art Institute of Chicago " American ..." - eg implying that the painting has helped boost visitors to the museum as one of the most desired to be viewed. There's more hits along those lines in Gnews, but I can't see the full articles to make a good assessment. Mind you, they all appear to be great articles to include on Nighthawks, irregardless of their applicability to the AIC and the image here. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Free replacement

For purposes of showing this, I made (and then immediately reverted) this version [12] that shows a free image (in this case, Am. Gothic) instead of Nighthawks. Those that want to keep Nighthawks need to show how this version is less comprehensive about the AIC than the version with Nighthawks. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It would of course be less comprehensive and less encylclopedic if you eliminate Nighthawks because then that masterpiece of the museum is no longer shown in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a nice link [13] - click on highlights see what comes up first...Modernist (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A list with no context is not helpful. I realize there's no other implicit order on that list (not year, alphabetically, etc.) and so one can presume they weight it heavily, but that's OR to assume that's the reason they list it first. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem—how would it benefit the article on the Art Institute of Chicago to include some of the tidbits of information that you seem to be searching for? Bus stop (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

To justify why we use the non-free image of Nighthawks to represent its importance to the AIC over any of the other free works that are also listed as masterpieces as part of the collection. If one can find sources that show how much more important Nighthawks is to AIC, then there's reason to consider allowing the non-free to highlight that, rather than replacing it with any free masterpiece image (which this would default to without that). --MASEM (t) 14:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You're not answering my question: "how would it benefit the article"? Are you talking about information presented in discussions on this Talk page or information actually included in the article? If you are searching for information to justify inclusion of the non-free image in the article, and you are also contemplating putting such material in the article, are we assured that the inclusion of such verbal material is actually to the article's benefit? Would it not be pointless to degrade the quality of the article to justify inclusion of a non-free image? Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

C'mon now Bust stop, you want the image included, so you also will want to find information to benefit the article about this painting, won't you? I don't see the point of your, erm, point. Sionk (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sionk—we are writing an article. We are not writing a justification for the inclusion of a non-free image, except maybe on the article's Talk page. We can discuss this here but we don't necessarily have to include the rationale for inclusion in the article space itself. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The image is used to illustrate the article, therefore that is where the context/importance to AIC etc. of the painting has to be written about. Non-free images are definitely not used to illustrate something that's only talked about on the Talk page of an article. Sionk (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sionk—"contextual significance" is a policy concept which allows the use of non-free images under certain circumstances. But nowhere in policy language are we instructed to include text in article space in order to avail ourselves of this concept in policy. Please review actual wording in WP:NFCC#8. Policy language in WP:NFCC#8 does not explicitly say nor even implicitly suggest that we include language in article space as justification for the use of a non-free image under the concept of "contextual significance". Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the primary content of our articles? Text. What else can you use to put the images in context than to relate it to discussion within the text? It's plainly obvious and not something you can rules-laywer over. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Policy language does not require material in articles that justifies the use of non-free images because our primary purpose is article writing. As an encyclopedia we do not expend an inordinate amount of energy to write what may be lame text that may, by someone's stretch of the imagination, justify the inclusion of a non-free image. Either the non-free image is justified for inclusion or it is not justified for inclusion. We treat all images alike in article space as concerns the amount and type of of language we lavish on them. We don't add what may be junk language relating to non-free images that we would not dream of adding, relating to "free" images. That "two-tiered" system of writing about images in article space is flawed because its priorities place image justification before article-writing. Our aim is writing the article. We have a degree of editorial discretion. There are not two groups of editors—those who understand and respect WP:NONFREE and those who do not. We can discuss and reach WP:CONSENSUS on the article Talk page. But articles should not be burdened by or distorted by the distinction between non-free images and "free" images as might be included in articles. This is a use for WP:TALK pages even if WP:TALK may not articulate specifically that yet. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong - free and non-free are absolutely treated differently. We do not have to lavish additional writing on free images for their inclusion - they can be used "decoratively", and in fact we want to encourage free content creation per the mission. (On video game articles, for example, I like to include free photos of the creators to add a sense of personalism to the article, though they do nothing to help comprehension). But non-free has stricter requirements for inclusion, and if the text does not discuss the image or concepts of the image at length that the image can be removed without impacting comprehension, then its use is inappropriate, per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem—WP:NFCC#8 says absolutely nothing about text and yet you are saying "and if the text does not discuss the image or concepts of the image at length … then its use is inappropriate, per NFCC#8". Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering and not using common sense. We need "contextual significance". Our articles are text-based. Thus the only way to achieve contextual significance is by discussion in the text. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem—we write articles; we don't write justifications for use of non-free images. Either their use is justified or their use is not justified. You are arguing for the inclusion of material at any cost. Priorities do not favor justification of non-free images over the writing of good articles. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Foundation requires us to justify the exceptional use of non-free images. That overrides any other policy on en.wiki. That's why our NFC requires this and we expect justification to be given by contextual significance. If there's no context, the use is effectively decorative and can be removed, regardless of what editors may think it provides. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Masem—please quote relevant language and provide a link. I would like to see the actual passage in writing that you are referring to. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, no one is questioning "contextual significance". The point of contention was "text". Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you're questioning "text" which that is the only obvious way to demonstrate contextual significance. But to quote the Foundation's resolution, point #3: "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." Using a non-free to illustrate the types of works a museum has fails this purpose. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Burden

The burden (see WP:BURDEN for the analog for text) is on those who wish to keep this image. Possible reasons to include the image are:

• The article discusses the image in relation to the museum in a way that would greatly benefit from showing the image. For example "The museum acquired the piece as an example of the artist's use of ..." (reference goes here) with the image near the text clearly showing the artist's use of "..." would qualify.
• Asserting (and winning any resulting debate) that the article should have at least 1 exemplar of the genre, period, style, artist, etc. and 1) no free alternative exists and 2) this is the best non-free alternative available.

IF they apply to this article (and I'm NOT claiming they do) are but two possible ways to attempt to meet the burden of keeping this image. There are no doubt other arguments that can be made.

I haven't waded through everything up above but anyone claiming that this image must be kept must provide a convincing reason or it should not be kept. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Even if it met those things (which it currently does not), it would still fail. In fact, the ONLY articles on which it can exist are Edward Hopper and Nighthawks. The reason for this is WP:NFC#UUI #6 which states that it is inappropriate to use a non-free image "to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article". An example of this is Afghan Girl and National Geographic (magazine). The image on the former article is iconic to National Geographic as one of their most famous photographs. Yet, it's not on their article. Instead, it's _mentioned_ in their article and a link provided. There are six uses of this image outside of the two articles I mentioned. All six must go. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, maybe we should obtain permission from The Art Institute of Chicago. Perhaps someone should call them...Modernist (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• It would be meaningless to obtain permission from them to use the image as we like on Wikipedia. Permission to use statements have no bearing here. Example; we obtained permission from the Associated Press for the flag raising on Iwo Jima photo. Result; it has to adhere to WP:NFCC just the same as any other non-free image for which we do not have permission to use. Thus, it can't be used on Battle of Iwo Jima, even though it is by far the most famous photograph of that battle. So, unless the Art Institute of Chicago is willing to release all rights to the painting, anything else we might get from them is meaningless. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• We'll see what they say; concerning educational use in this encyclopedia...Modernist (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• It has no bearing. I'm sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Says who?..Modernist (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not an issue of fair use. It's the fact the image is still copyrighted that qualifies it under non-free content. Unless the current owners of the copyright on the painting (likely Hopper's heirs) put the work into the public domain, creative commons, or a situation like Iwo Jima, it will be burdened with IP that does not make it free media, and thus subject to non-free. If fair use was our line, I wouldn't doubt for a moment its use it would be fine, but our non-free policy to meet the Foundation's requirements sets that higher bar. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "To use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone. " (Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • At the end of the day, copyright abuse is theft. Can we draw an end to this and remove the image from the article? There is evidently no rational that demands the image be shown in this article, particularly when its easily accessible at Nighthawks. Sionk (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Let's avoid calling it a copyright theft problem. Even with its use here, I doubt anyone would the number of times (6 presently) we use the image a legal copyright problem. Its the mission that we have to consider this image in light as being a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It's most definately not theft, and calling it that suggests an inability to offer any valid opinion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Pardon? My opinion is as valid as yours thankyou! You are the person that repeats the same rationale without providing any evidence to support it. After all, this section is about the burden of proof being on the persons that wish to use the image. Sionk (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Multiple sources have been provided in my comments, so that comment further shows the invalidity of your comment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• No. We simply do not sacrifice educational content, and here, to exclude this museum's famous masterpiece from this article sacrifices educational content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's a unacceptable argument when we have a very detailed article on the work itself. Since this is about the AIC, missing the image isn't affecting the educational value about the AIC as currently demonstrated. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Of course its the acceptable argument; this article exsists to educate encyclopedically about the museum, the museum holds this famous masterpeice, to exclude the masterpeice is to mis-educate in an encyclopedic manner about the museum. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't. My education understanding about the museum is (presently) not changed by seeing Nighthawks in the article, since this is about the museum. You cannot use the argument "It is a famous work and thus must be shown", because that is not allowed per NFCC#8 and NFC#UUI#6 - I can take out the image and still understand everything there is about the AIC. (In contrast, taking the image out of Edward Hopper would be harmful since that is described there as his most famous work). We need more sourcing to establish that Nighthawks is critical to the AIC but that hasn't been shown yet - only established as one of several masterpieces the museum holds, meaning we can use a free image of a masterpiece instead. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you do not fully understand this article, if you think you can cover this matter encyclopedically in that manner. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not missing anything if I don't see Nighthawks, in the article's current state; no one has yet to give a compelling reason why the image is so vital on the AIC page. Remember, we're here for the general reader, not for art appreciation, so you can't use it on just the basis of being a masterpiece. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, we are here to cover The Art Institute of Chicago encyclopedically. The sources provided, including the University of Oxford, show this work as a defining masterpiece of the institution. Moreover, every illustrated source provided shows this work.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Our non-free content policy is not the same as fair use that other works can employ, so there's zero point in comparing what we do to them (besides, we show the work on its own page already, so it's not like we're burying our heads in the sand about that image). The sources so far demonstrated do not yet elevate Nighthawks above any other of the listed masterpieces in the manner you say, meaning we can use free imagery for the same purpose of showing the defining work of the AIC. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No other image is a free alternative to show this masterpiece as a defining image of the Art Institute. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"this masterpiece as a defining image of the Art Institute". , otherwise it is just supposition and not sufficient to use the image. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Art Institute of Chicago" - definition from the Oxford Dictionary of Art, already provided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Your quote from it implies "a" celebrated masterpiece, not "the", giving no importance of Nighthawks over, say, American Gothic (which has a free image). That distinction must be clearly shown, not presumed as it is being done in this discussion. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It singles out this image as a celebrated masterpiece to define the Museum. No one ever argued, it's the only masterpiece, rather an indispensable defining one, consistent with the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So it doesn't elevate it as any more important than any of the other masterpieces the museum holds, which means that I can use any of the other free images of the other masterpieces the museum has just as well to demonstrate the importance of their collection and not use Nighthawks here as to satisfy NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You cannot do so encyclopedically, nor in faithfulness to the source. It's this image that is defining for Oxford, along side the other two, not instead of. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That fails NFCC, then. Remember, we are not the only source in the world and can let other sources do what they want, but we have a free content mission, and if that's all the sources are saying, our free content mission requires us to remove that image and use free ones instead which are doing just as good a job. Again, I need to stress this: no one in any of the statements here has pointed out, to the AIC, how critical it is to have Nighthawks in their gallery over any other masterpiece they may possess. We cannot simply point to a source that highlights it as a work and presume that's enough, that's simply not strong enough for us to make the exception against the free content mission. I am open to the fact there may be sources out there that support the basic statement "Nighthawks is the most critically important work displayed by the AIC" which would fully justify that image use, but the burden is on those wishing to keep this to find those to be included to retain the image. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It does not fail NFCC, it is not replaceable (there is no other to represent this image); it signficantly enhances understanding and understanding of the subject would be harmed because it is a defining element according to the source. Most of all, it is encyclopedic coverage, which is the overriding mission of the project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This revision I did (and subsequently reverted) [14] shows a free image that shows a defining element of the AIC according to the sources and is encyclopedic coverage. Since you haven't shown any more sources to change this, this is a freer version of the article than the one with Nighthawks, and thus by NFCC#1, we need to use this version (or more specifically one that lacks Nighthawks). Further, the free content mission and the non-free Resolution of the Foundation override any mission of en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

By doing so, you misrepresent the definition of the subject. That is just not allowed. To take one element of a definition and not the other is intellectually dishonest, as well as un-encyclopedic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no sourcing that supports the definition "the AIC is defined by possessing Nighthawks moreso than any other work." Without that sourced definition, Nighthawks remains as replacable non-free use. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The definition does in fact make Nighthawks definitional to this subject. It is not replaceable in the definition. Your changing goal-posts, notwithstanding. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has been changed. To demonstrate what types of works the AIC has we have 30+ free images of masterpieces it holds, and one non-free. By the very Foundation Resolution, we cannot use the non-free in lieu of the free to demonstrate the AIC's collection, unless there is some strong educational value for that image. So far, no one has shown any source or quote that places Nighthawks on a pedestal above these that requires its representation on the page. Everyone is say "It's important to AIC so we should show it." That does not fly for non-free justification, period, otherwise we've flood the project with "important" non-free. Again, I stress, all we need are sources that explemify the AIC's collection specifically by its possession of Nighthawks, moreso than any other painting (for which we have free images of). If you cannot distinguish Nighthawks in this manner from the free alternatives, we will remove the non-free and use the free alternative to follow the Foundation's requirements. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No we will not. Because that is not what the Foundation requires. It does not require us to ignore sourced definition. Nowhere does anything except your comment say that. In fact the Foundation's educational mission and Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission requires, otherwise. Your recitation just goes to show how sparing and well chosen the use of this content is already, and perfectly consistent with the Foundation, -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Museums have many popular works of art. Visitors have their favorites but visitors are not in agreement. Works of art are almost by definition very different from one another. The Foundation in fact provides a different sort of example when it says "…such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals."[15] I think the reference there is to different portraits of the same individual. By contrast two entirely different paintings may be two different "portraits" of two different people—or any other subject matter, for that matter. I don't think we even need a source telling us the relative levels of popularity of several popular artworks. Works of art are almost by definition very different from one another. Bus stop (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The quoted definition does not define AIC solely based on exhibiting Nighthawks, only that it is one of its core works, as you have explained it. That means other works (for purposes of discussion, the equally recognized American Gothic) equally define it. Other works include those that have free images for. There is free content replacement that has the same educational value. You need to show more than that or otherwise the presence of non-free Nighthawks in this article violates the Foundation's mandate. Bus stop, the part you are quoting exactly demonstrates this - we do not allow non-free of living persons because free images can always be made and thus we can replace non-free with free. The reason we need sources is that just asserting Nighthawks is important is not a satisfactory allowance for non-free per NFCC. It needs contextual significance, which means its importance to the museum from the viewpoint of the museum needs to be spelled out and most likely sourced. I fully agree, outside of WP rules, Nighthawks is a key piece at the AIC, but within the context of NFC and other policy and requirements, we need to prove that before we can use its image here. NFC is not something you can toe around; it is a necessary line that we have to enforce and this is a case that is well outside the grey line; its inclusion fails at least 3 NFCC criteria. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The quoted definition defines the AIC by reference to Nighthawks. It is false to claim that any other work is a replacement because that is just not what the definition says. Nothing else equally defines it, because both the definition and the Museum is the sum of its parts. Within the context of the sourced encyclopedic understanding of the AIC, it is unique to it by being an element of its definition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, if it just mentions Nighthawks, that's name-dropping, and not providing significance over any of the other free works that we have. I have no access to the Oxford work but only going by what has been quoted here, but if all the Dictionary calls Nighthawks within context as, at most, a "celebrated masterpiece", that means other works equally qualify as defining the exhibits at AIC, and thus we don't have to rely on the image of Nighthawks. Even your statement, the museum is the sum of its parts, implies all the works are equally important, and thus we can use American Gothic over Nighthawks to demonstrate the sum of the works in the museum. NFCC#1 and the Resolution require use to do this. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Masem—what would it mean for "Nighthawks" to "define" a large museum's collection? You speak of the possibility of a painting "defining the exhibits at AIC"[16]. I think you are asking others to find sources showing that the Art Institute of Chicago is "defined" by something. I don't think it is even clear what that would mean. Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what several people have been asking for (or pointing out doesn't exist in the article). Suggested by the title of this section "Burden" (of proof). Evidence needs to be shown that an illustration of Nighthawks is fundamentally essential to the understanding of AIC. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sionk—does Nighthawks "define" the collection at the Art Institute of Chicago? What would it mean for "Nighthawks" (or any other artwork) to "define" the collection at the Art Institute of Chicago? Masem is referring to works "defining the exhibits at AIC"[17]. I'm wondering—does this have any meaning? We have editors (not me) scurrying around looking for sources to support this alleged status for the painting "Nighthawks". But what status are we looking for? "Definitional"? What does that mean? The only sense that I can think of in which a painting "defines" a collection would be if the collector singles out one painting as "defining" the aims that he or she had in mind in amassing that collection. I am asking the question as to what it would mean for one work of art to "define" a collection of works of art. I think it would mean nothing unless such a use of language were deployed by a person who endeavored to put together a collection of works of art that expressed a personal vision. In that sense the collector could seize upon one painting as coming closest to "defining" the vision that the collector endeavored to express by the efforts expended in carefully choosing each work of art that went into that collection. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford dictionary defines "The Art Institute of Chicago" by reference to Nighthawks. The editors of that work did not just drop that there. That is false. They selected it. They did not pick another work to represent it. Moreover, it is false to claim, I said anything like all the works are the same -- that is plainly incorrect, and that is the type of misinformation that is attempted to being pushed onto this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We are trying to determine if non-free image usage for the painting "Nighthawks" is justified at this article. The painting is undeniably important and it is undeniable that in the "context" of the Art Institute of Chicago it is "significant". The only question would be whether or not the relation between "Art Institute of Chicago" and "Nighthawks" constitutes contextual significance. Bus stop (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and in addition to and among the many other times this has been addressed above, [http://www.amazon.com/Art-Institute-Chicago-20th-Century-Sculpture/dp/0865590966/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367321858&sr=1-4 the Art Institute also says yes]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Being a named work in an art reference book about the AIC, and being used on the cover of the book about the AIC is not sufficient to say that it is a key work; it is simply a name-drop for all purposes. Of course its connected to the AIC because it is hosted there. So is American Gothic. What makes Nighthawks more important than all these other masterpieces that we have free images for to be required to have to break NFC to show it? Your argument keeps saying its an iconic work of the AIC but that connection has not yet been shown. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Being in the definition of the museum in the Oxford Dictionary is more than enough to say it is a key work; being on the cover of the museum's own scholarly publication about their own collection of 20th Century Art is more than enough to show it's a key work. That it is called an "icon," by the AIC, references have already been provided, but your continued pose is that nothing will satisfy your imaginary un-encyclopedic standard, regardless of the sources. Frankly, it's ignorance of the subject matter that you stand upon, and will not be moved.--Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A book by the AIC about it's collection would likely carry some work from the museum, so whatever works it picks would suddenly become it's icon. Same with the definition. Why is Nighthawks a so-called icon? Remember the question we need to be answering to use Nighthawks in an article about the AIC instead of any of the other free images we have about its collection is why that work is so important. Just being used in a definition or a book cover is not sufficient to answer why. This is not a made-up standard - the arguments for replacing Nighthawks with any other free image follows directly from the Foundation resolution and NFCC#1, save for some educational value that you and others from visual arts keep arguing for but have yet to demonstrate by sources. The AIC collect is well understood by the text, with links to individual art articles, and the free picture gallery on this article, and nothing said about Nighthawks has convinced me there's more educational value with that present that reading and following links can't otherwise meet. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What the AIC chooses as an icon substantially educates about it. This particular artwork, because other RS choose to define the AIC by it, also substantially educates about the AIC. That the AIC's icon is a visual that is displayed across mediums, substantially educates about the AIC. You ignore the reason why because you refuse, contrary to policy, to follow the sources which tell us it is a celebrated masterpiece of art that the sources choose to define this museum by. (Moreover, I am no member of any such Project, so you are wrong there, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are only implicit connections, and not sufficient to substantiate its use over numerous free images that also define the AIC collection. There are no sources to follow because no one has produced any that meets the requirements of contextual significance. You cannot just present a book cover and say "see, there it is for yourself" to meet NFC in particular when free replacements are ready and waiting to be used. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. No one just presented a book cover. You evidently have no knowledge of the sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

There's that, and then there's the mention in the Oxford dictionary, but as given in context here, it simply uses the work as the main example of the AIC collection, and not explicitly calling it as any more important. Again, same issue with the book cover. Neither of these sources can be used as context in the article to establish contextual significance to justify the inclusion of the painting over any of the other free ones that we have. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are not all the sources that have been provided. Nor is that the standard. Also, nowhere does anyone say "just examples." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's drop the Oxford Dictionary of Art completely from this conversation shall we? It most emphatically doesn't say Nighthawks is the defining work of AIC. To claim that would be (and is) tendentious, unproven rubbish. The entry says Nighthawks is Hopper's "best-known work" and also implies the work has been with the AIC since 1942. A certain person here is adding 2+2 to equal 6, which is clearly original synthesis. As is producing a book cover illustrated by Nighthawks to make the link. Sionk (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we will not drop it. That is not what the Oxford Dictionary says on it's entry for the Art Institute of Chicago. p. 814.Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would a 600 page dictionary have an entry for "Art Institute of Chicago" at page 814? Sionk (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Because you are looking at an abridged edition or something, or perhaps not the New Edition? But the one I am aware of has a page 814. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see [http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Oxford-Dictionary-Art-Chilvers/dp/0198604769 Revision 3] has 862 pages. But why would "Art Institute of Chicago" or "Chicago Art Institute" be at the end of the dictionary? What is the entry you're claiming links AIC to Nighthawks? Sionk (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It begins with a few lines on 813 and goes to 814. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What begins on page 813? Spit it out. Sionk (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The entry for The Art Institute of Chicago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Replaceability is not so applicable here. These are paintings of various subjects. Expressivity characterizes these entities—not verisimilitude. The subject matter between American Gothic and Nighthawks is very different. You cannot simply say that one can Replace the other. These images inform the article Art Institute of Chicago. Their use in that article is neither decorative nor serving a specifically identifiable purpose. We don't have to show by sources that Nighthawks is the best painting in the collection. That is a nonsensical concept. Even if a source could be found saying that Nighthawks was the best painting in the Art Institute of Chicago collection, that very well may not be information that knowledgeable editors wish to put in the article. That sort of comment may be regarded by knowledgeable editors as rubbish. We have a policy called Contextual significance. Is Nighthawks significant in the context of the Art Institute of Chicago? It doesn't have to be sourced as being hugely more significant than any other painting in that collection. That is because the concept of Replaceability is not as strongly applicable as it might be in other situations. Replaceability would be very applicable if we were comparing several photographs of the same individual. In that circumstance clearly we would feel obligated to choose the free image. The subject matter would be similar in all of those photographs, and the aim for verisimilitude would probably be similar in all of them. The notion of Replacing a non-free image with a free image would clearly be applicable there. But do we have the same degree of applicability of the concept of Replaceability when considering paintings in a museum's collection? Clearly Nighthawks is an important painting. We do not have to show that it is more important than the other paintings in that museum's collection. To have the image of Nighthawks remain in this article we would have to feel that Contextual significance applies. Bus stop (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. First, because this is about the museum, we don't even need to display any pictures of art to start with; we're talking about the history of the Institute and the building. No pictures of any of its works are required. Now, of course, we have 30-some free images of works they possess, so it makes 100% sense to add those without burdening the free content mission, and that helps to make the article look nice. But now you want to use the non-free Nighthawks. The Institute is well understood without the image because no one has provided contextual significance of the importance of Nighthawks to the AIC, and we can represent the AIC collect with free replacements just as well. So replaceability 100% applies in this case. And you can't hand-wave and imply contextual significance- it has to be present to meet NFCC#8 - if there's no significance, then the reader's understanding of the article would not be harmed by omitting the image since it's importance is never discussed in context. I can understand from the viewpoint of a person interested in art why this image is so important, but we are writing an encyclopedia with a free content mission, and its inclusion, based on all current discussion, fails that goal. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Masem—"contextual significance" results from the relationship between Nighthawks and Art Institute of Chicago. You can't argue that this relationship doesn't exist. You can argue that the level of significance does not meet your standards. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Contextual significant applies to what is on Wikipedia, not what is out there in the knowledge cloud. There's this notion that no one has backed by non-original research text that Nighthawks is the defining work of the AIC. I don't challenge that that is likely the case, but its not stated in the article and that's where the contextual significance needs to be. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Masem—in the context of the Art Institute of Chicago, the painting Nighthawks has some degree of significance. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

But not in the Wikipedia article for the AIC, which is where NFCC#8 and the Foundation requires it. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Masem—we don't necessarily have to include in the article that the painting is an "icon" or that it "defines" the collection. In my opinion this is tripe. We can be a little bit more sophisticated than that. The reader can form their own opinion of the painting. We don't have to tell the reader what to think. They can evaluate the painting without our suggestions. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't include NFCC to let people evaluate the image on their own; that's just not allowed and makes it a decorative use. Also, consider the average reader who will have no idea of what Nighthawks is or what the AIC is. If the context is implicit and not stated, they will not see this connection, and thus its removal will not harm the understanding. So NFCC#8 still fails here. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear. You say "So NFCC#8 still fails here."[18] Explain to me—why does WP:NFCC#8 fail here? Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

To any person who is unaware of what Nighthawks is and is reading the AIC article for the first time, their understanding of the article is not harmed by removing the Nighthawks picture since there has been no established fundamental connection of value between the painting and the AIC besides being owned by it in context of the article. That's failing the second part of NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Your argument has been that contextual significance would be established, and presumably we could then include the non-free image of "Nighthawks" in our article, if we could establish by means of reliable sources that Nighthawks "defines" the Art Institute of Chicago's collection. What exactly would it mean for "Nighthawks" to "define" that collection? And why would that be more important than ownership? We already know that the painting is owned by the museum. Ownership is already reliably sourced in the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

To reset this, because we're drilling down too much on that detail, for the picture of Nighthawks to be used in the article on the AIC, when it has been shown that freer versions are immediately available (eg using American Gothic or another such work), we need to have context on the painting's relationship to the AIC (read: sourced prose) that would require the picture to be shown alongside the text as its absence would harm the reader's understanding - eg to fully satisfy NFCC#8. The current text there does not do this; it is a wedge of facts to try to justify inclusion but not sufficient to do so because it is failing to establish that connection. It's called an icon, but not in relationship to the AIC. Hopper commented on the museum having it but that's basically namedropping AIC and could have applied to any museum that acquired it. The $3000 price AIC got for it is a factoid that's great on the painting's article page but not here. None of those facts show a very strong connection between the work and the AIC that needs a non-free to demonstrate.
That said, I want someone here to prove me wrong to justify its use. I feel there should be a source that explicitly lays out how the work is a icon of the AIC. Again, to counter, I know I can easily source and use the free image of Sauret's Sunday Afternoon and connect it directly to the museum due to its appearance in the AIC scene of Ferris Beuller. We need something stronger than that to justify Nighthawks. If it truly is an icon of the AIC, there should be explicit sources about this. The evidence points to such but we can't go on supposition. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, is it going to move things forward to repeat the same arguments, correct though they may be? Someone will come back here and repeat that there is already contextual importance in the article and we will be back on the same hampster wheel. This was the reason I raised it at "Requests for closure", because nothing new was being brought forward. In my view, if there was cast iron proof that Nighthawks was the most important abd central defining work at AIC, someone would've found it by now. Sionk (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sionk—there is no need for a "cast iron proof that Nighthawks was the most important abd central defining work at AIC". We already know that Nighthawks is an important painting. It doesn't need any greater distinction. Or does it? Please explain why it has to be "the most important". Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If Nighthawks is not the most important painting in the collection, then any of the other masterpieces that we have as free images can do the same educational job of highlighting a cross section of the AIC's collection than the non-free of Nighthawks, thus further invalidating its use here. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Masem—no they could not do "the same educational job"[19]. This is because their subject matter is unrelated. Were we talking about a collection of photographs all of the same person we would have a good situation for replacing a non-free photograph with a free photograph. But American Gothic and Nighthawks have nothing to do with one another. The subject matter in the two paintings is unrelated. One painting cannot meaningfully be said to replace the other. Furthermore "contextual significance" is not dependent on a painting being "the most important painting in the collection"[20]. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes they do. If we were on the article for Nighthawks, of course American Gothic wouldn't be an equivalent replacement because it's not Nighthawks. For the purposes of this article however, the one about the AIC, American Gothic and Nighthawks are both representative samples of the AIC's collection. There's 30 more of these in the free gallery at the bottom of the page, and I'm sure there's even more if we started going through all the works the AIC had and consider those long out of copyright. Now, the point I've trying to push ppl to find is to try to establish is if Nighthawks is more than just being a representative sample from the museum but in fact what AIC considers its most important work in its possession. If no sourced text in the argue can elevate Nighthawks from representative sample to this most important work tier, then it remains just a representative sample, and one which we have 30+ candidates to replace it by without losing any education value of what the representative sample of the museum holds. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

On what do you base your claim that Nighthawks and 'American Gothic are representative samples of each other? It seems to be an extraordinary claim. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

They are representative samples of the AIC's collection, not of each other. Nothing has been established that we can put into article context that establishes that any one work is more important to the AIC than another. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Masem—I don't think we have to find a source which says that Nighthawks is the "most important work in its possession"[21]. Isn't it sufficient that Nighthawks is an important painting? Isn't this already established? WP:NFCC#8 merely requires that we establish "contextual significance". We know that this painting is owned by that museum. The entities are both significant. Painting and museum are established beyond a doubt as being significant. And they certainly exist in the context of one another. The museum owns the painting. Why should we have to establish that the painting is the "most important work in its possession"? Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Nighthawks is an important painting. So is American Gothic. So are each of the others that are listed out in the section about the AIC's exhibits. Since it is both impractical and impossible to display every work the museum holds, we are selecting a representative sample, and those that are considered more important than others in the art world, aka masterpieces. Without any additional weight of importance on the non-frees, our free content mission and non-free content policy says we pick the free images to use for this representation. Again, we're not trying to help the reader appreciate the artwork held by the AIC, but the AIC itself. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

But what is the basis for your claim that they have the same educational value or that the education relating to them is the same, that appears to be an assertion without any basis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hamster wheel, you see ;) Same repeated arguments, repeated misunderstandings of the difference between free content and non-free content. Basically, if free images are available of AIC's art collection, use them instead. Period. Sionk (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• But, I _like_ Nighthawks! :( That should be reason enough. It's reason enough lots of other places on the project. 3 out of the top 5 high non-free using articles are painting articles. You guys are in the minority. <insert smileys as needed> --Hammersoft (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears that your evidence shows that the editors of this article are suitably sparing with this article :). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really, given that the image of Nighthawks is used 5 other times in addition to the use on this article. Minimal use applies per article and per the entire wiki, and its hard to image why the same image needs to be duplicated 5 times over. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not having researched the sources for those other articles, I could not say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Masem—the article should not have to include vacuous language to justify the inclusion of a non-free image. I'm referring to the terms that you have just about been demanding as a prerequisite to the inclusion of the non-free image of Nighthawks—terms such as "most important" and "defining". Bus stop (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. That's what "contextual significance" is all about! Remember , you have three NFCC problems here that have to be clearly met:

• NFCC#1 fails presently since to represent a selection of the artwork the AIC holds, we have numerous free images to use as replacement for Nighthawks, including most of the works highlighted as masterpieces listed in the article.
• NFCC#3a (extending to NFC#UUI#6) fails because we have 5 other uses of Nighthawks elsewhere, including on its own article, and adding yet another use is not meeting "minimal use", particularly when we have a way for the user to click once to get to the article on the painting in question. The use of Nighthawks here would have to be clearly critical to allow yet another exemption for non-free inclusion.
• NFCC#8 fails because in general to understand the AIC (a museum/organization) it is not necessary to visually show their collection (the discussion of it is completely fine) - the article doesn't break down in terms of comprehension for the lay person if we removed all the painting/artwork images (including free). Definitely the case for specifically Nighthawks, simply because seeing the art without anything in context (prose) doesn't help understanding, it's just a pretty picture that associates with the word "Nighthawks". For the free images we don't care if there's no context, but this is absolutely a requirement for non-frees.

This is why I've been stressing that we need a rock-solid statement of the importance of Nighthawks to the AIC backed by sources in the text of the article that establishes it as its most important work above all other works the AIC holds to clear all 3 of the above problems. The reasons provided have been hand-waving statements of its importance, and I agree that the way that people talk about Nighthawks in relation to the AIC, it seems to treated more importantly than other works, but we as editors can't say this ourselves. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Passes NFCC#1: Nighthawks does not represent a "selection" in this article, rather the sourced (multiple sources linked above and in the article) "encyclopedic purpose" and understanding of the AIC, which show that this "icon" and "celebrated masterpiece" represents Nighthawks in relationship with the AIC, not other things. (Example: it was said above by User:Masem that if the AIC's Nighthawks is analogous to the Louvre's Mona Lisa it should be kept -- see entries on the Louvre and the AIC)
• Passes NFCC#3a: as no other item conveys the same information and passes UUI#6 as it does not only illustrate a mention in the text, it educates about the sourced, informational importance to understanding the subject AIC. The sources show that the item and the subject are intimately related. (Also, note point of order, during this discussion, it appears that User:Modernist has paired back use of this image to 3 articles not 5). The statistics above show that this content is used sparingly in this article and otherwise. Finally, note all Users above apparently agree that Nighthawks would be fair use in this article, which means it has educational value, and while that is not enough, in and of itself, it is foundational and undisputed.
• Passes NFCC#8: The article text and sources make clear the substantive educational value (with the "most recognized" "famous" "icon[ic]," "must-see" "celebrated masterpiece," ) and the harm to encyclopedic understanding the AIC (without it).

The sources provided show Nighthawks is definitional to the AIC and nowhere is "most important" required (however, it is most important in the encyclopedic sense that matters), rather encyclopedic value to this article makes the room that is provided for on this Project. The Project does not deform and misrepresent sourced definition by excising its parts. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No source provided has explicitly stated the importance that you have claimed. Until such sources appear so that that importance can be added to the article text without introducing original research, it fails all 3 above points. You cannot use a rationale that is based on your assumptions or intuition. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

And to add, NFC does not care if it is "fair use". I completely agree if this was not Wikipedia, the use would be unquestionably fine under copyright law. But we have a stronger requirement as the Foundation's goal is reduce non-free content when free content replacement is possible. This is clearly possible in this case, and thus why the requirement for its use doesn't matter one iota about fair use aspects. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources do make those statements. You on the other hand, have cited no source that says it is replaceable. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, there are no sources that show Nighthawks is definitional to the AIC. If there are, show them! It is not anyone's responsibility to prove the image shouldn't be used; the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those few people who want to use the Non-free image. Sionk (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford definition has been provided. And yes you have the burden when you make an extraordinary claim like an iconic, celebrated masterpiece is replaceable.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

As has been stated before, from what you have said about the Oxford book is that is only gives Nighthawks as an example of the work in the AIC - it praises the work but does not elevate the work in an explicit manner to require illustration for the reader to understand the topic of the AIC. Replaceability here is not trying to replace Nighthawks as a work of art (if we were trying to argue that on the actual Nighthawks page, or even on Edward Hopper, I'd expect that discussion to be laughed out of the room). We are talking about the replaceability of examples of the work of art that AIC holds, which Nighthawks happens to be just one. A large number of those are free so any non-free examples can be replaced by free ones, barring the explicit sourced discussion about the work being more important than any of the other works the AIC holds. This is the fundamental principle of the Foundation's resolution - promoting free works while minimizing non-free, and unless sources can be provided to strengthen that claim, we default to removing the non-free in favor of the clear free replacements. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford dictionary elevates Nighthawks into its definition of the AIC. In ordinary meaning of "definitional" that makes it definitional to the AIC. Moreover, the Oxford editors did not replace Nighthawks with something else. But your position is that it can be replaced, but that position is entirely unsourced and without any foundation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that's an assumption that because Oxford chose to use that work as an example that it is the most important work in the AIC. The article is completely understandable without seeing Nighthawks, and there's a direct link to the article about the work if the reader really needs to see it. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I make no assumption. Rather, the sourced understanding of the AIC is substantively increased with the addition of the 'celebrated masterpeice' consistent with the sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

But it is not harmed with its omission, meaning it still fails the second part of NFCC#8. Only if it is very clear, explicitly stated by sources, that you cannot understand the AIC without understanding the importance of Nighthawks to it (which hasn't been shown), then this part is met. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The harm is in misrepresenting the sources, they understand the importance to the AIC and we reflect that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly some error here, or deliberate misrepresentation by Alanscottwalker. The Oxford Dictionary of Art doesn't have an entry for Art Institute of Chicago and, if it did, it wouldn't be at the end of the publication because, obviously, dictionaries list entries in alphabetical order. Secondly, the sources referring to Nighthawks that are currently in this article are primary sources, therefore we can put little store on what they claim about the painting. Both AIC and Hopper have (had) vested interests in elevating the importance of the piece. Sionk (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented it, it is there where I told you the pin-point cite is. How the Oxford Dictionary lists entries is up to them and may be topically. It is not a primary source and neither are many of the sources. Moreover, the Pedia relies on primary sources, where the primary source is from the subject of the article, because that is sourced evidence of the subject. What the Art Institute publishes and claims teaches about the Art Institute. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, is this discussion mooted by what's happened on Commons with respect to the file? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing Oxford as an RS, I am disputing the fact that you are making the claim that by using Nighthawks as the example art in their definition of AIC, that it is a critically important painting to the AIC. It is an example Oxford uses, and while I can understand that they aren't going to be choosing unknown examples for each entry, it is original research to make that there is an unbreakable connection between Nighthawks and the AIC that necessitates showing Nighthawks to the reader to understand the AIC. Contrast this with the Mona Lisa and the Louvre, which does have an extremely close connection. That's the level of importance that is needed here, and the Oxford ref simply doesn't give that explicitly.

On the Commons issue, the way that it was added was a bit pointy (you don't upload works that you know are of questionable freeness there), but if that should come out that the painting is out of copyright and otherwise considered free, then inclusion here is completely appropriate. The matter presently is that as a non-free, including it violates the Foundation's resolution and NFC policy, but those fly out the window if Nighthawks turns out to be free, and I would certainly encourage its inclusion then. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oxford makes the substantive educational connection and editorializes this masterpiece in their entry to identify the Museum, not me. As for Commons, I know nothing of what happened there just that it happened -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The only explicit language that has been explicitly given as quotes from the Oxford book (I can't see the ref so I don't know if there's more) is that it is "icon of American culture", but if there's more editorial text in that book that describes Nighthawks in context of the AIC, no one has offered it yet. You cannot rest the claim that it is important to the AIC because Oxford chose that one image to highlight the museum with, that's just a presumption of the intent of the Oxford book. Claims of importance cannot rely on what books choose as illustrations if they provide no other context for their inclusion. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oxford notes the "celebrated masterpiece," "Nighthawks," in its entry on the AIC, which is also quoted. "Icon" is cited to the AIC and the National Gallery of Art, as I recall.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't believe the alleged entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Art. It's a dictionary, the clue's in the title. Rather than continue to make repeated vague assertions about what the source is and what it says, why not give the full details? These claims are getting increasingly spurious. Sionk (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have already given the cite in full. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Where? You've been incredibly vague to the point of obstructiveness. Sionk (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you appear to be the only one who does not know where the full cite is in this article. I also told you particularly days ago what page and edition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Also FYI withdrawing, until the Commons issue is worked out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Masem—you suggest here and here that the relation between "Nighthawks" and "Art Institute of Chicago" is different from the relation between Mona Lisa and Louvre. Can you present any sources showing how the two situations are different? Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Working on the assumption that Mona Lisa was a non-free (I know its not, but to put the level of what's needed here), the museum clearly puts a lot of weight into the painting: they gave it its own room [22] [23], being one of the few pieces saved by the museum during WWII [24], the fact an attempt was made to steal it from the Louvre [25], and generally considered the museum's "most viewed work". [26]. There's more than enough sourced evidence to support including the Mona Lisa painting in the Louvre article if it were non-free (as free, there's zero question) Now, I have tried to do similar sources for Nighthawks and AIC, but I've not come across anything anywhere as strong. I've mentioned a couple that approach this but nothing to suggest it as the most popular exhibit or the like. There may be more out there, but I simply can't find anything.--MASEM (t) 17:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Alan, just name-dropping "icon" or "celebrated masterpiece" is all details on Nighthawks but without any context of the AIC. That's the problem. Unless the quote goes more into that instead of just saying Nighthawks is at AIC, it's not helping any reason to show the image here. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, not least because those adjectives or adjectival nouns are not "names", so it is not possible they are name dropping and your opinion on that is unsourced, rather it's editorial by those soucres (and I disagree for other reasons) but it appears we need go into it no futher as in the discussion on Commons, your judgment is that it is public domain. Thank you for the discussion, if it got sometimes too heated on my part, I apologize, but my intention was to strongly represent the case I think correct and right and nothing else. (Also, for the future, I suggest less pronouncement about "policy requires" when the policy by it's terms only calls for reasoned consensus judgment) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think arguments are bad, it just helps to clarify what's needed. I wanted to see how this image could be used because I completely agree with its importance, but as a proponent of the NFC policy and the Foundation's mission, this was a case that would clearly have closed with the image's removal. It's the type of edge case of NFC (specifically in the fact that this wasn't the only use of the image, and plenty of other free images were available to showcase the museum) that if we let slip, creates a loop hole for others to argue larger inclusion of non-free in similar cases. I'm glad I found its free as it removes onus from making a stronger case, but otherwise, give that we are tasked by the Foundation to minimize non-free to exception cases, this was a case we needed to have a very firm rationale to include. I suspect there was more out there to make that case, and those needed to be found. But all that doesn't matter with the image in the PD-US (at minimum), include away w/o concerns. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Good job - all around...Modernist (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Closure?

I've raised this thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Positions seems to be quite entrenched and, whatever the outcome, the conclusion will have impact on the use (or lack of) in other Visual arts articles (particularly art galleries). Sionk (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Parade of horribles is a logical fallacy, and if that is what is driving this discussion, it should not, nor should it be granted anything as a determining factor. Since the discussion is live, it will not be closed but I do agree that it has reached a point that others can become involved in it, especially since so much has changed about the article and about File:Nighthawks.jpg during most of the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I came from WP:AN/RFC to close this thread, but agree with Alanscottwalker that it is too early to close; there is on-going discussion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Re premature closure or later closure please also note whatever's happening with commons file File:Nighthawks by Edward Hopper 1942.jpg. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

PD-US, at minimum

So from the Commons discussion, I found this, which says:

"These publications illustrate more artworks that are now in the public domain in the United States because the artists did not file copyright renewal applications within the one-year renewal window at the end of the 28 years following the first publication. All of these artists died fewer than 70 years ago, so these artworks are potentially protected by copyright in countries that calculate copyright protection based on the life of the artist.

• Edward Hopper, Nighthawks, 1942. From: The Art Institute of Chicago, Fifty-third Annual Exhibition of American Paintings and Sculpture. Chicago: 1942.
• Salvador Dali, Inventions of the Monsters, 1937. From: James Thrall Soby, Salvador Dali. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1946.
• Ivan Albright, Heavy the Oar to Him Who is Tired, Heavy the Coat, Heavy the Sea, 1929. From: WFMT Chicago Fine Arts Guide. Chicago: November 1960."

So if this is being stated by experts in the field, I see no reason to argue anymore that this is a non-free image (it may not be a commons image due to that foreign country statement) and certainly qualifies, at minimum, as PD-US, which means it is free enough to be used without having to meet any issues. The only question is whether its universally PD (stays at Commons) or PD-US (moved to en.wiki but otherwise treated as free and outside NFC scope). But inclusion is fine. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Way to go Masem! Good find...Modernist (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• This also means all the former uses (in the various art school-style articles) the painting can be re-included without question. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks...Modernist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Blimey, if only we'd known this before writing the above zillion words of counter argument. Thank goodness it's settled! Sionk (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image captions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Sionk - images have captions - read up on - WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, or can you find the MoS that says they can't...Modernist (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Tedious. See Wikipedia:MOS#Captions, they should be succinct. Also, for accessibility reasons, text in images can't be read by text readers used by the visually impaired. What's the problem with putting it in the body of the article like everything else? Sionk (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• The caption is succinct - It's a quote with date and context. It's in the article text now, don't quite get your tedious?...Modernist (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Accessibility issues can be handled using alt=screen reader text, see Help:File#Using files for an example. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There was as much (if not more) about the painting in the caption as there was in the body of the article. On top of that there was a full inline citation. That doesn't strike me as succinct at all. Eccentric at least. It wouldn't be practical to repeat it as 'alt' text. I'd go as far as to say the edit was tendentious in support of the argument (above) to keep the image. Sionk (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Various Feature articles with 'tendentious' captions - many captions but not all by me - [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and many by others like this - [34]...Modernist (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We generally add article text and then some of the text goes to the caption - however early on you deleted the caption that had text in the body of the article; just saying...Modernist (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Class Project Page

This page has been selected by one of my students as a class project. Please be polite and constructive when editing or giving advice and be aware that the students involved in this project are learning Wikipedia along with learning research and writing skills. please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. If you have any questions, please contact me. --MrSilva (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Major donations

I propose that major donations of art works be either listed or integrated into the history section. For example, "a "landmark" gift" (sic) by Steve Johnson, Chicago Tribune, April 22, 2015, pp. 1 & 8 tells of the recent donation of a collection of 42 works by Warhol, Lichtenstein, Johns, Rauschenberg, Koons, Twombly and 20th century artists. The collection came from Stefan Edlis and Gael Neeson. 64.53.191.77 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Art Institute of Chicago. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zagat.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?SCID=42&BLGID=20948
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100311044420/http://www.chicagoinnovationawards.com:80/past-winners/2009 to http://www.chicagoinnovationawards.com/past-winners/2009
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-09/chicago-art-institute-borrows-100-million-for-pensions
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016131345/http://theartnewspaper.com/articles/Art-Institute-of-Chicago-s-massive-extension-opens/17325 to http://theartnewspaper.com/articles/Art-Institute-of-Chicago-s-massive-extension-opens/17325

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Huge race controversy. All the white women were fired for diversity. Wow.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chicago-museum-fires-apos-mostly-150838189.html

The Art Institute of Chicago fired all of its trained volunteers and guides last month, who were mostly older White women, to diversify its team.

"We were surprised, we were disappointed," Gigi Vaffis, president of the docent council, said in an interview with radio station WBEZ of the firings. "There is an army of very highly skilled docents that are willing and ready and able to continue with arts education." ....

The firings were apparently sparked by the fact that most of the docent staff was composed of older White, financially well-off women, the outlet reported. Stein said that the museum needed to take a new path "in a way that allows community members of all income levels to participate, responds to issues of class and income equity, and does not require financial flexibility."

WOW Charliestalnaker (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Unionization

A possible topic for inclusion somewhere in this article would be the recent (successful) unionization of staff at the museum and school, as well as claims of union-busting tactics being used by management. The topic has received coverage in outlets such as the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, and seems relevant in the context of the larger wave of unionization efforts at museums in recent years. For example, the article on the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston includes a paragraph on their union. Orangestwo (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

References