Jump to content

Talk:Art Renewal Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

For Fred Ross and the Art Renewal Center:

Ty 01:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you put those references in the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to help! Ty 00:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, can someone simply add these sources in? This would make the article more readable as right now it does not have enough secondary sourcing. 199.7.157.99 (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will add some of these sources in. Many of them are dead links. However, most are fine. All other editors, please help by adding reliable sources to this article. Art Historian (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We all know you and the IP address are User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd whose sock accounts have all been confirmed as socks. Stop pretending to have a conversation with the IP address. You're editing in bad faith so we can all just otherwise ignore you. freshacconci (✉) 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vallen's opinion

[edit]

Is hardly relevent since he is not a respected, high profile figure in art criticism but just a random blogger. He was a former contributer of work to Marxist terrorist org the Black Panthers, involved in counterculture movement punk rock, bemones supposed "Eurocentrism" of European high art, so is hardly in a neutral position on this subject. Even if more far gone exponents of counterculture want to try and situate him as somehow "conservative", this really isn't the case. Also within the article similar Marxian terminology is mobilised in an attempt to put across a POV that supporting academic education, outright rejecting modernism is somehow a heresy. Can we get some good rationale as to how Vallen is a high profile art critic? - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. removed material.[1] Vallen's opinion is relevant and valid because it was cited by a reliable source, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which is still in use as a reference for other material in the article. NPOV applies to editors, not to sources. Per WP:NPOV, we represent what sources say. If you have another source with a contradictory evaluation, that can be cited also. Whatever you think about Vallen is irrelevant. I have asked for input from WPVA. Ty 00:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like an organization dedicated to dreadful art, bad taste, and dated, uninformed rigid opinions. I suppose even still it has a right to be sourced...Modernist (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Mark Vallen is sourced from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.[2] Yorkshirian says it shouldn't be used, even if it comes from a reliable source. Ty 01:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complicated for me, as I know a number of painters involved with this...and given the traditional motives of my own work. But I don't think there is anything wrong with the referenced criticism, which does not appear to be an anomalous view. I do think the accompanying passage: The group is openly hostile to contemporary art education and dismissive of contemporary art history from the Impressionists onwards. Among the published polemic there are attacks on David Hockney for his thesis that many artists used lenses and visual aids., while probably true, needs to be sourced. Sounds a bit churlish and dismissive in tone. And, incidentally, they are not alone in rejecting the breadth of Hockney's thesis. Whatever we think of the organization's philosophy doesn't matter; tone must be neutral. JNW (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Uncited passage to be cited or removed (although I think it states a position the ARC would endorse). Cited Vallen material to be kept. See also 6th ref in Sources section above, where about.com also cites Vallen. Ty 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the condescending tone adopted, which gives a "nod, nod, wink, wink" bias in favour of nihilism (finger painting, twig playing sort of stuff which modernists allege is art) is inapropriate, but the main problem is, when considering that Vallen does not have a high profile when it comes to art criticism or even as an artist in general. For instance why would the reader need to hear his opinion on William-Adolphe Bouguereau or academic art in general? Lets be realisic here, Bouguereau painted the work to the right, while Vallen is an obscure blogger who bemones classicism because its "white people art". If his opinion must be kept, it should at least be put into context, not made to look like he is some sort of trad. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what sources say, not what editors think. See WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This is basic editing policy and is not negotiable. The source considers him a suitable person to quote, and says, "Not everyone subscribes to Ross' views. Even artists who aren't fans of modernism object to his canonization of Bouguereau. Mark Vallen, a California realist painter, wrote..."[3] The article text follows that. Ty 23:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think its tasteless to have this punk rock guys blog opinion in an article about high art. Is Vallen a realist? Of sorts. But he is also a cultural Marxist who hates Bouguereau because he painted European people in traditional enivornments, as well as Catholic art. Its not put across in the article that Vallen is not an authentic reactionary, but in fact a collaborationist with the destroyers of high art. Vallen's reactionary credentials are extremely dubious, so the "even artists..." line is a bit off key. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't include or exclude material on the basis of what an editor considers is tasteless, or any other opinions by editors. Please read my post immediately above yours for the criteria by which we do include material. Please also read WP:BLP concerning remarks about living people: this applies also to talk pages. If you are concerned about the article, I suggest you reference the unreferenced material in it, and add more referenced material using the sources at the top of this page. Ty 00:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Bernard

[edit]

Just one remark: This is definitely not the first renewal expected to come from turning back to pre-modern positions, see for instance Emile Bernard's move from vanguard positions to something he called rénovation esthetique.--RPD (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

[edit]

Would it be appropriate to have a link to the Dutch artist and architect Han van Meegeren here? Although known as a forger who hoaxed the art establishment because he disapproved of modern art, before this he tried to start a movement, with a magazine, De Kemphaan, that promoted many of the views similar to the ARC, making him a precursor.

[edit]

In recent days I've tried several external links from Wikipedia to ARC images and they all returned "Not Found" messages. Obviously ARC has moved or deleted those images. Somebody needs to go through and fix those links. Lee M (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

I wanted to mention that the recent edits by Theroadislong were appreciated and I agree with those changes. I see the blocked editor is back using a different IP address and edit warring. freshacconci (✉) 20:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Large Unexplained Removal of Content

[edit]

Please explain why you wish to remove such a large quantity of content. I have added more reliable sources, so there shouldn't be a problem just leaving it in. If there's anything else you would like to remove, please let me know and we can discuss it.199.7.157.81 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were explained and they were justified. Three editors agree with them. Your edits are disruptive and you're evaded your block. You have now been warned several times on your talk page. freshacconci (✉) 20:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not explained why you want to remove this content at all. You have removed 1) All references to the types of artists favoured by the ARC, 2) all reference to their online museum, 3) All references to William Bougureau (which Fred Ross from the ARC focuses mostly on), 4) All references to their scholarships, 5) All references to ARC approved academies and ateliers. Why butcher the article? This info is also sourced. Can you just please focus on a small sentence or two that you would like to delete, and not delete the entire article? 199.7.157.81 (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove anything. Theroadislong did and he explained it in his edit summaries. All the edits were justified. Nothing has been "butchered". We're here to improve articles, not promote the subject. Your edit warring has been reported and at this point three editors agree with the changes. Unless you can establish consensus otherwise, the edits remain. As for sources, you do have a problem understanding WP:RS as I mentioned at contemporary art. freshacconci (✉) 20:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have against the Huffington Post as a source? Also, the edit summary claimed the info was unsourced, which was not even true before I added sources. In any event, please respond to the specific items I listed above.199.7.157.81 (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As with your edit summaries, you're lying. Theroadislong explained more than that. Three editors agree with the changes. Your revert did not improve the article so move on -- I have no obligation to address your demands. freshacconci (✉) 20:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Online Museum at the ARC

[edit]

Perhaps this was inadvertently removed. The ARC does in fact have an online museum featuring works by 224 different artists. William Bouguereau (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody was denying that. It was not sourced and the wording was promotional. I've edited it. freshacconci (✉) 21:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too much primary sourcing/not enough secondary sourcing

[edit]

This article needs a cleanout. Everything here that is only cited to a primary source (e.g. that spammy-looking table of approved ateliers) or a blog source needs RS coverage or to be removed.

What in the article can be sourced to RSes? What would be left after a cleanout? - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the talk page, there are many secondary sources. We could just add those instead of deleting factually correct information. As for the table, it is necessary, as many artists who wish to learn this method don't know where to go. Many so-called academies are actually modern art schools in disguise. Please consider adding the reliable sources at the top of the talk page rather than spamming citation needed labels.
I agree that there are not enough secondary sources. So, do not remove reliable secondary sources like the Huffington Post (a major newspaper). If you wish to improve the article, add reliable sources, don't take them away. 199.7.157.99 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Huffington Post link is to a blog post. This does not meet WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability as Newspapers and Magazine blogs are ok. In any event, I added sources from The Washington Times, The Epoch Times, Fine Art Connoisseur Magazine., Pittsburg Post Gazette, and more. These are good faith edits. All I'm trying to do is fix the problem that you have helped identify. Namely, this WP article desperately needs more reliable sources. Can we agree to work together and add reliable sources to this article? Art Historian (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.99 (talk • contribs) [reply]
A newspaper blog is not necessarily an RS, and frequently isn't. In any case, you are a hugely conflicted editor - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This blocked sockpuppet is editing from the IP address 199.7.157.99 but "signing" it as User:Art Historian freshacconci (✉) 01:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given this is functionally, in its present condition, a promotional article, the course of action would be (1) strip it back to the two RSes present (2) then add back what can be sourced to an RS. There's no point keeping ill-sourced promotion on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article cut back to RSes

[edit]

There were a total of two RSes that were checkable. Everything is sourced to one of those, and mostly the first one. There are other sources listed on this talk page that might be good; I strongly suggest that the deleted material only be added back as and when there's an RS for it - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Spam

[edit]

So, someone added a crapton of spam to the article. I don't know why. Anyway, I started to remove it, and ended up reverting to an earlier version because it was taking so long. Please don't add ridiculous spam to the article. StarsandStripes (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This editor as been reported as an obvious sock of User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. freshacconci (✉) 00:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm American. I don't live in Ontario. Stop it with the personal attacks. StarsandStripes (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bold suggestion (but not WP:BOLD)

[edit]

I've attempted to improve the article but as others have found, references are few; a couple of local papers writing from press releases about an exhibition is pretty much all we get. Much space in this article is devoted to Ross' interest in William-Adolphe Bouguereau. Bouguereau, in fact, dominates the article. If this article cannot be improved due to lack of sources, should we not merge this to the Bouguereau article under that article's Reputation section (which at this point only mentions Art Renewal Center in one line)? I don't see how this article can be expanded or improved, nor how the issues mentioned in the tags can be addressed. Since so much of this article is about Bouguereau and how he influenced Ross, perhaps this article is a subset of that article. freshacconci (✉) 15:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced ARC warrants more than a line, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There really should be large sections on A. The annual ARC Salon Competition including categories and past winners, B. The ARC scholarship program, C. The ARC online museum, D. Some of the artists featured on the ARC website. (Charles Bargue, Jean Leon Gerome, Sir Lawrence Alma Tadema, etc.), E. Present-day academies, and ateliers.
While Bouguereau is one of the many historical artists featured on the ARC website, the ARC is really more about promoting present day artists/academies who follow the classical realist style. It is certainly not merely a fan-page of only one artist.2607:F2C0:94CB:C600:DD87:92F3:BBC3:A6D8 (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of that would require sourcing and there really are none (and "large sections"? how would you fill large sections of text?). The problem right now isn't organization and as this is not a promotional arm of the ARC, expansion with such information is not appropriate. freshacconci (✉) 02:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be dozens of reliable sources. Now there are two. Why not add sources instead of remove them?
The Salon Competition section alone could be quite long once it includes past winners in each category. Can you think of any competition article that does not include a list of past winners? NFL, NBA, MLB, the Olympics, the Nobel Prize, etc. All of these articles list past winners.
It's certainly not "promotional" to mention that the ARC has a scholarship program. The UNCF lists its scholarship program on Wikipedia. Many scholarship programs are mentioned on Wikipedia.
Looking at the edit history, it looks like you've been trying to shrink/delete this article for years. As a show of good faith, can you either restore sourced information (stuff like the online museum, or Fred Ross being an author) or even restore/add sourced content to the above sections I mentioned? 2607:F2C0:94CB:C600:DD87:92F3:BBC3:A6D8 (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any independent reliable sources to support the content? Theroadislong (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were not "dozens of reliable sources". There were a pile of non-RSes and primary-sourced promotional content - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

attribution of quote

[edit]

Elkins cites http://www.artrenewal.org accessed on April 18, 2003 as saying "responsible views opposing those of the current art establishment". The way it is currently phrased makes it read like Elkins said it: Particular emphasis is given to nineteenth-century Salon painting, and offers opposing views to the current art establishment. This is just the subject talking about itself, cited by a 3rd party. Mduvekot (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The use of the quote is disingenuous. Elkins mentions the Art Renewal Center in passing, using their own words to describe what the organization claims to be about, but the person who added the citation appears to have missed Elkins' sarcasm: "Tom Wolfe should see this [list of Art Renewal Center's 'forty-odd approved schools and teachers']: it gives the impression that half the world paints in an academic figurative style." If we use Elkins as a source we need to be honest and state (per WP:BLP and WP:V) exactly what Elkins is saying. However, Elkins' brief mention of the Art Renewal Center would need to go in the reception section.freshacconci (✉) 22:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good points Mduvekot and freshacconci,
I have now attributed the "responsible views opposing those of the current art establishment" properly. The part about "Particular emphasis is given to nineteenth-century Salon painting" is Elkins own words however. It seems like the wording before made it seem like the ARC was a Bouguereau fanpage, as opposed to an organization promoting 19th-century-style salon painting in general. I also made some minor changes. The ARC was founded in 1999, not 2000. The previous page number was wrong. I hope this helps address your concerns.2607:F2C0:94DD:F900:542D:B1CD:256A:5EDB (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article page blanking

[edit]

Please don't wipe out the entire article!!!64.92.46.126 (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this appears to be our promotional spammer returned - adding back the same blog and deprecated sources - David Gerard (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_Renewal_Center&oldid=1199036117"