Talk:Art blog

Rewrite

The "Art blogs" listing has been rewritten to suit Wikipedia's writing guidelines. Please do not delete.Willivich (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art blogs are a vitally important arena for arts discourse and should be listed in Wikipedia. Although not as widely read as,say, political blogs, art blogs are equally important within the arts community. I urge you to reconsider the deletion request. Willivich (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UT--

Where did the deletion debate go? Artblogs (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PROD, which this was, as opposed to WP:AFD (more heavyweight). WP:SD is the first in the series of increasing severity. Ty 08:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, speedy deletion is the most severe, since it means the article may be deleted without further warning. Proposed deletion requires a five-day waiting period. AfD allows for five days of discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of this article, it was proposed for deletion right out of the gate; that was contested. If anybody were to nominate it for deletion, it would go through the AfD process (unless it qualifies for speedy deletion, which IMHO it doesn't). —C.Fred (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Severe" in the sense of finality - AfD carries most weight as a decision. Ty 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Artblog Authors: Adding your own blog/editing this page

Note to artblog authors. Wikipedia does not allow for original research or self promotional edits. Editing pages in which you have an direct interest (particularly a commercial one - this includes blogs with ads), or which relate to you or your business as a subject is a conflict of interest here at Wikipedia. If you are an artblogger, you should make use of this discussion page as a place to make an argument for your inclusion or to suggest edits relevant to this page. Other editors, for whom it is not a conflict of interest will make relevant edits if they see merit in your suggestion for inclusion or changes in content. Glowimperial (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glowperial is taking Wikipedia's stance on conflict of interest too far. The best editors will be those who know something about the subject they are editing. This is not a conflict of interest, it's called EXPERTISE. For most art bloggers, their blogs are a labor of love, not income-generating operations.Willivich (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking the issue to far, although I am extremely conservative on conflict of interest issues. I've seen how self promotional edits by web-based professionals and amateurs can ruin what could be excellently written pages. Frankly, bloggers are some of the worst Wikipedia editors out there, often taking a "I know the Internet, the rules don't apply to me" attitude on making wiki edits, and since blogs are inherently self promotional media, folks who are successful bloggers tend to have a bit of an aggressive, self promotional streak, which isn't particularly helpful in the crafting of objective, referenced data for an encyclopedia.

I'm an artblogger myself, and although my site is a labour of love, and makes no direct income, the attention my site gets certainly ties into my professional, paid role in the industry. Although that's not the case for everyone listed on the page, it certainly is for some (Winkleman, for example - his gallery benefits on a certain level because of his highly public role as an artblogger). I think it's best that artbloggers refrain from making direct edits, and instead concentrate on providing guidance from the talk page. The expertise of artbloggers is certainly useful, but to presume that every editor of the article is going to do so in good faith and with unbiased intentions is naive. There have already been a number of bloggers creating single use accounts to add their own sites to the list of notable art blogs, which isn't helpful, and there's already been a little revert action as the result of it.

If an artblogger is already listed and needs to correct some information, such as the spelling of their name, or a date or something minor, that's fine, but I think it's highly inappropriate for anyone to engage in autobiography here. The expertise of artbloggers is obviously valuable and necessary, but IMNSHO, it should be presented and measured here, on the talk page, as opposed to the article itself. There's literally an infinite amount of room on the talk page for people with potential conflicts of interest to assist in the writing of the article in a helpful way. Glowimperial (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artbloggers will edit regardless. The important thing is that any editor with conflict of interest or not, follows core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, along with WP:RS. Any edits that don't do so should be amended or deleted. Ty 03:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the self promoters, the amateur autobiographers and the folks with agendas don't know the policies, generally don't respect them if they do and usually just make a mess for the rest of us to clean up (if it ever does get cleaned up). On a page like this, I always think its better to vet new additions on the talk page, especially since there doesn't seem to be any established standard on notability for artbloggers. Wouldn't everyone rather there be a lot of reasoned debate in advance of an addition than following the removal of content? Glowimperial (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the author of Art News Blog? That blog has been mentioned on Forbes so it would be a good pick for inclusion. I can't find the name of the author though. I did read that his first name is Dion. Artblogs (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the kind of reference that is needed. Ty 03:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, COI, and Regional v National v International

As an artblogger and arts professional, it's a conflict of interest for me to create bios for these folks. Since this page seems to be attracting new editors, who aren't familiar with the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, maybe I could recommend The Wikipedia guidelines on notability as a resource for editors looking to create new entries related to this page. Internet personalities, blogs and webpages are viewed with high scrutiny on when it comes to notability Glowimperial (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people listed are notable. Johnson, Winkleman, and Tyler are for certain. Which additions do you have issues with Glowimperial? Artblogs (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best that I stay out of any conversation regarding who is and isn't notable - my position on notability here would probably be extremely biased, and my concern about this article is that it's one pissed off blogger away from becoming a clusterfuck or home to a revert war. I agree with you that most of the folks are certainly notable, but this article shouldn't become a list. The purpose of this article should be to adequately explain what art blogs are, how they relate to traditional art media and any other issues that are specific to art blogs, relative to non-art blogs. Perhaps any major events that have shaped the art blog community should be mentioned, such as the Peter Plagens article, which is already present. Maybe a better idea would be to create a second article that lists arts bloggers - right now this article looks like a list, and if external links are added back in, it basically becomes a link farm, which is not helpful to anyone. Glowimperial (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glowimperial's foul language notwithstanding, I think this article will need considerable work to clearly identify what an "art blog" is, and to provide good examples of such blogs, without simply becoming a link page. There are thousands of art blogs in the US alone. This article does not yet address international art blogs, and blogs in other English speaking countries. At best it is concerned with art blogs in the USA.

The point of which blog is "national" or "notable" and which is "regional" would seem to be rather problematic as many art blogs art New York City based, which is at once "regional" and "notable."

I decided to add C-Monster to this list because that blog is as notable as the others on the list.

It would be interesting to verify "notability" in all accounts by readership, or number of hits, but it would seem this data would reside with the blog owners themselves in an unpublished format. Richard McCoy (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally wikipedia does not associate traffic with being notable, but in the case of blogs it can be helpful in order to put things in perspective. You might not have access to hits for each blog, but you can use Alexa and other ranking sites to get an idea. At least for some of them. In some cases the blog might be notable, but the author won't be and others the author might be notable, but the blog won't be. So it can be difficult. I'm not sure why there is a Culture Pundits link at the bottom. Artblogs (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can use some of the blogs as examples in the body of the article instead of having a list? Thoughts? Artblogs (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Material needs to be referenced with secondary sources per WP:V to validate inclusion. It's no good editors just putting in what they know. Ty 08:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a blog is notable just because the blogger is based in NYC. New York is an important cultural scene of the art world but that does not make every New York based blog or blogger notable. Most of the blog/bloggers listed here have been quoted or referenced by major media sources. To me that is what makes them worth being mentioned. Regions should be considered though. A blog or blog writer may not be nationally known but widely known in the region that is covered. I do think the list is getting un-organized though and I wonder if most of these blog or writers could be turned into stand-alone articles.

I realize that Wikipedia normally does not consider bloggers notable. But some of these writers have been at the front of cultural debates. It is naive to suggest that a blogger like Paddy Johnson is not notable consider her influence. One thing I should mention is that I recently added to the article for VIP Art Fair and all three links I used were removed even though the three bloggers I linked to after creating a section for Criticism have been mentioned by very notable media sources. I think a lot of editors just assume that a blogger or blog for that matter is not important unless it is ran by a company. The irony being that one of the bloggers I linked to has interviewed the founder of Wikipedia in the past. If Wales views specific art bloggers as being a source to contribute his time to I'd think more editors here would take the time to actually research a bloggers before removing those additions without a second thought.SunRiddled (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create bios for some of these authors?

Anyone want to help me create bios for some of these art bloggers? Artblogs (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking in the debate so far, I think this entry should feature far less information about individual bloggers. I think the entry should focus on the art blogging scene. Questions I would have as a reader include: what sort of art blogs are there; where is the crossover between art blogs and conventional outlets; how many art blogs are there. These are basic questions that are far more suited to a 'pedia than what we have now. If that approach is taken, the notable references sort themselves out in a way we see on other good wikipedia entries; references are made to the first art blogs (live and not - if we can ascertain the latter for sure), the most notable for a specific category and so on. Or to put it more succinctly: why not adopt the conventional 'pedia approach when writing this entry? Jonathon561789 (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands if not millions of art focused blogs in the United States alone. But only about a dozen have stood out in the medias eyes. When you have only a handful standing out among so many it is obvious that they deserve their own articles especially if they have been referenced by major media sources. It would be a difficult thing to accomplish though because many editors feel that bloggers who work independently from bigtime media outlets are not notable no matter what they have accomplished.SunRiddled (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Some of these are secondary sources to validate information, i.e. genuine references. Some are just links to the blog, i.e. external links and should be placed in the External links section, unless they are validating specific content. See WP:REFB for guidance on citing. Ty 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excerpt, pasted from the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources: "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND. How reliable a source is depends on CONTEXT." To explain the creator's goal in creating the blog or descirbing a blog, quotes from the blogs themselves are completely legitimate. It seems to me, when discussing blogs and writing Wikipedia entries for them, you have to be willing to use blog materials as reliable sources, particularly when they are maintained by experienced journalists. It's ironic that Wikipedia dismisses this type of online material as unreliable given that Wikipedia is also an online project maintained primarily by volunteers with little or no expertise in the subject matter they are discussing. The often contentious relationship between blogs and the mainstream media also needs to be considered when looking for reliable sources. Journalists tend not to write about the competition. And what about this: As newspapers fold, will Wikipedia continue to consider unemployed journalists, who may begin to maintain blogs, as reliable sources? Willivich (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's legitimate to use the blog to state the goals and content of the blog. However, it is necessary to have secondary sources to validate that the blog is worth including in an encyclopedia article in the first place. These sources may well be specialist ones, and need to be agreed by editors. There must be literature on blogs, whether in print or online, that has some kind of authority to evaluate them and indicate which are considered significant within their own field. If this criterion is not applied, then the situation exists where anyone can start a blog overnight and then put it in the article; this is not an acceptable situation. Of course, editors can then say such and such is an important blog and something else isn't. This is not allowed per no original research. Wikipedia does not validate content by editors' opinions. So again, there needs to be established authorities relevant to the genre, who are sufficiently respected to demarcate the wheat from the chaff. Failing such validation, any material can, and should, be deleted. Ty 03:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk threads

Please indent appropriately to keep a logical structure of talk that other editors can follow easily. One colon indents on space, two colons indent two spaces and so on. They are easier to work with than using asterisks to indent which make bullet points. Ty 03:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder - I've been inactive for a while and am wiki-rusty. Glowimperial (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the traffic ranking of these blogs

I know that traffic ranking sites like Alexa are not normally used in debate on Wikipedia but due to the nature of art blogs and the internet I think it is worth considering. With Alexa any site ranked 100,000 or lower is an influential website. So I looked up current ranks for the blogs mentioned under 'Notable art blogs'. Absent Without Leave blog has an Alexa rank of 1,573,609. By that standard the blog is not well known even if it is one of the first art blogs. Which has yet to be verified.

And the others: Art Fag City is at 260,881, Artblog.net is at 812,985, Bad At Sports is at 1,343,043, C-Monster is at 16,090,602, Catherine Spaeth is at 5,602,435, Culturegrrl is at 71,278, Edward Winkleman is at 1,082,680, Eyeteeth.org is at 12,539,977, Fallon and Rosof is at 1,962,399, Hrag Vartanian is at 1,386,082, James Wagner is at 539,998, Joanne mattera is at 4,876,517, Modern Art Notes is at 71,278, Modern Art Obsession is at 883,758, Myartspace Blog is at 87,627, Newsgrist is at 505,143, New England Journal of Aesthetic Research is at 936,150, PORT is at 962,085, Two Coats of Paint is at 2,239,247, Rebelart.net is at 131,591, Wooster Collective is at 45,869

Only a few have passed the 100,000 mark. So the majority of the ’Notable art blogs’ listed are not very influential if you think on terms of traffic. Keep in mind that some that have yet to reach the 100,000 threshold were mentioned in that Art in America article. So you can't base notability on traffic rank alone. It is something to consider though. Artblogs (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of a problem with the Alexa data quoted above. I noted that Culturegrrl and Modern Art Notes has exactly the same figure. This is because the figure is actually for the whole of the site they publish under, and not their own blogs. These are, as far as it goes for art blogs, notable. Jonathon561789 (talk) 04.45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While traffic isn't necessarily related to notability (web traffic and rankings for bloggers are ridiculously easy to game), and this information shouldn't be used to determine notability, this does illustrate the point that there's little hard data to go on, and actual, hard data is what makes Wikipedia credible. And the Alexa data isn't credible - my personal site (and I'm certainly not a notable artblogger) ranks in at 2,338,225 and C-Monster, which is a daily, national must read ranks in at 16,090,602? When I used to aggressively maintain and re-write body modification related articles here, I would have to sit around cross-referencing a two-foot stack of texts. That's the kind of source material that an article should be based on, if possible, and it's just not out there, yet. Glowimperial (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C-Monster's ranking was/is not 16,090,602 on Alexa. It is 1,182,404 at the time/date per my stamp. Jonathon561789 (talk) 04.47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny how sites with good Alexa ranking are always charged with gaming the system. An art blog like C-Monster that has a traffic rank of 16,090,602 is simply not an influential art blog. Just because C-Monster is part of the blogging network Culture Pundits does not mean that it sets the standard as a prime example of an art blog.It might be influential to a core group of artists but it has not yet obtained a following online. The only blog references I can find for C-Monster were found on other art blogs that are in the Culture Pundits network. Since Culture Pundits is a for-profit network I don't think a cite from one blogger in the network can be used to defend another in the network without it being a conflict of interest. It is going to be tough to defend some of these blogs. Wikipedia is not a place for predictions. Artblogs (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C-Monster's ranking was/is not 16,090,602 on Alexa. It is 1,182,404 at the time/date per my stamp. Jonathon561789 (talk) 04.50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone of gaming anything, I'm just pointing out that it's easy to game the system. That has always been the nature of every search or ranking system on the Internet, and it makes them all suspect as objective sources for measuring importance or notability. And since Internet personalities leave their tracks all over the place, their rankings are always somewhat inflated or distorted, often unintentionally.

C-Monster is an influential blog, with national influence - everyone reads it, and damn near every other art blog links to it. I know the author of C-Monster, and I read it daily and I was unaware of any Culture Pundits connection. I'd suspect that if Culture Pundits didn't exist, C-Monster would likely exist as the exact same blog, just sourcing its advertising from somewhere else. I do agree that editors to any blogging related article have to be extra vigilant to spot bloggers cross promoting each other. As to the Culture Pundits issue in general, isn't Culture Pundits just a network for connecting advertisers with markets? Would you apply the same "cross-cite" restriction to two bloggers who both used Adwords or who both had sidebars pimping stuff on Amazon?

I think you're looking at blogs that have profitable elements with undue suspicion - for the purpose of this article, whether the blogger is paid or unpaid, has advertising or doesn't, is part of a network, etc... is really irrelevant to the argument for inclusion on the basis of notability. It's not a sin for an artblogger to make income - some of the most notable (Example: Tyler Green is paid to blog, and should certainly be on this list). What should be looked at is whether the blogger is notable for some particular piece of writing or action, as justified by proper cites and references. And again, that data just isn't available for this field.

My recommendation would be to scrap the list of notable bloggers, or fork it to some list page that contains no biographical data and is just a list of artbloggers, and concentrate on the issues related to art blogs in general and the history (however short) of them. Here's a question - could this page be changed to a redirect and everything that a reader really needs to know about art blogs be contained in an expanded section in art criticism? Or does the broad scope of issues and subjects that artblogs cover (individual artists' practice, criticism, show reviews, blogs that are intended as art, museum and institutional blogs, etc...) merit its own page? Glowimperial (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I guess it is how you define influence. Is a art blog influential or notable just because a core group of art appreciators read it on a regular basis? When I think of the internet and influence I think of a much larger audience. It you don't agree back it with sources. C-Monster and some of the other blogs are barely on the map if you think of influence on a larger scale. I brought up the Culture Pundits issue because I found it odd that a link to the Culture Pundits network was placed on the article along with several blogs that are in the same network.

Culture Pundits is a network for art-related ads and many of the Culture Pundits bloggers work on projects with the owner of Culture Pundits. A lot of the info appeared to be added by people connected directly to the blogs and to Culture Pundits itself. I also found it odd that there were no complaints about art blogs being added until art blogs outside of the Culture Pundits network were added. The article needs to be neutral and not an ad for one collective of art bloggers.

Being on the network does not make one notable even if several of the art bloggers on the network are. I also think that a Culture Pundits blog being used as a resource to back another blog in the same network is a conflict of interest. ArtCal being used to back an art blog or blogger who is in the Culture Pundits network would also be a conflict of interest since both are owned by Barry Hoggard. So if Modern Art Notes mentions Winkleman it would be a conflict in my opinion because both have connections with Barry Hoggard. Hoggard's ArtCat designed Winkleman's gallery website. It does not matter how notable Tyler Green is in that scenario so far as being used as a source to show Winkleman blogs notablility.

From what I read you have to be accepted in order to join the Culture Pundits network. They don't accept just any art blog. So don't compare it to Amazon or Adwords which anyone can have on their blog.

I changed Notable to Examples because we have yet to rule out which are notable and which are not. It might be best to scrap the list or mention the blogs within the article itself as examples. Some of these bloggers have content that has been picked up by sites that are considered notable on Wikipedia. So those would be great sources in the article as examples of art blogging going mainstream. I think there should be a section for personal art blogs also. But I don't know how we can use examples without it looking like promotion unless there are some notable artists who also have personal art blogs. Artblogs (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of the talk page for art blog you had concern for blogs abusing the page for financial gain. So I would think you would agree with me on the Culture Pundits issue. Do you think that link should return? There is no reason for it to be here other than to drive traffic to blogs in the Culture Pundits network which results in profit for those bloggers and the owner of Culture Pundits Barry Hoggard. The other blog lists do not appear to be a promotional ad. So do we agree on that or not? Artblogs (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this Culture Pundits debate is covered thoroughly enough below; why not tidy this section up? I have expressed my view on the CP issue below.Jonathon561789 (talk) 04.58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

- - What do you mean by "tidy this section up"? You can't delete comments. Eventually someone may archive the page, but it will still be available to read. Artblogs (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive would be tidying up... Jonathon561789 (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I'm not sure how to do that. Artblogs (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Plagens and Raphael Rubinstein

Is Peter Plagens an authority on art blogs? According to his own words he is not. So I take back my suggestion that the blogs he mentioned are notable based on his opinion alone as a writer for Art in America. I base this on the info below.It almost appears that he is critical of art blogs.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_10_95/ai_n25439329

I also think the section about Raphael Rubinstein needs to be reworded. I viewed the page and it said nothing about being a ‘special section’. Maybe take ‘special’ out?

I also wonder if Rubinstein’s opinion is being taken out of context. The article states, “annotated survey of popular art blogs. This may be the first acknowledgment of art blogs as a viable forum for criticism and contemporary art commentary to appear in a visual art print publication.”

But here http://www.firstpulseprojects.com/frontpageaia.pdf it has what he actually said,

“It’s no secret that the number and influence of on-line Web logs, or blogs, have grown dramatically over the last couple of years. Although the contemporary art scene has yet to produce a blog as consequential as ronsilliman.blogspot.com has been for the poetry world or dailykos.com in politics, there are now quite a few interesting art-related blogs. Here is a list, briefly annotated, of some that I’ve found to be worth regular visits.”

No where did he say “popular art blogs”. He actually suggests that art blogs or “art-related blogs” have not reached the point of being a viable forum for criticism and contemporary art commentary if you look at what he said word for word. All he said is that the blogs listed are “interesting” and are “wroth regular visits”. I hate to be a stickler but if this is going to be done it needs to be done right. Artblogs (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article and the list in particular, is that there just isn't really that much valid reference material to determine notability. And even where there are published, linkable articles, go back 3-4 years - every newspaper or magazine article on art blogs mentioned art.blogging.la, which used to be a very active and very influential site, before going dark for a while and then returning as a local listing of exhibitions with snippets of local art news. Many of the available articles are written by folks who's knowledge of blogging in general is limited, as well. I'd make the argument that the subject is really too new, to in flux and too novel to truly determine notability for a list of notable blogs. Do we want to create a list that must be constantly in flux as authors come and go? Or a list where anyone who is connected enough or mainstream enough to be mentioned in a number of publications automatically becomes notable? Glowimperial (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art in America references amalgamated into the Art Blogs and the Mainstream Media section. Revised notations, timeframe dating, and more incisive commentary included as part of this process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathon561789 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Culture Pundits blog list link (which they profit from) necessary?

I’m also concerned about the link to Culture Pundits since most of these blogs are part of that network. We don’t want this article to appear to be an ad for Culture Pundits. The article is about art blogs. As far as I know Culture Pundits does not have the authority to suggest which art blogs are prime examples of art blogs. They are just an ad business with a focus on art and culture based ads.

From Culture Pundits site: “Culture Pundits is a vertical network dedicated to arts and culture. We help you run advertising campaigns on carefully selected arts and culture blogs and other websites. Our advanced geo targeting enables you to advertise for potential customers exclusively in your target market, and campaigns are measurable 24/7. Contact our sales team to learn more.

For Bloggers and Other Publishers We encourage bloggers and other web publishers covering arts and culture to apply to join the network. Members of the network also have their recent posts highlighted on the homepage of ArtCal.”

If you visit the site you will find that the bloggers who are accepted by Culture Pundits profit off of the Culture Pundits ads that run on their blogs. The following blogs on the ‘Notable art blogs’ list are involved with Culture Pundits: Art Fag City, Bad at Sports, C-Monster.net, Eyeteeth, Hrag Vartanian, James Wagner, Two Coats of Paint. Just thought I would point that out.

I’m also concerned about the connection that Culture Pundits has to ArtCal.net. I believe ArtCal was listed in a prior version of this article and was removed by someone after the Culture Pundits link was questioned before. On the Culture Pundits site it says,

“We encourage bloggers and other web publishers covering arts and culture to apply to join the network. Members of the network also have their recent posts highlighted on the homepage of ArtCal.”

One of the editors of ArtCal is James Wagner. The same James Wagner that has a blog listed on the ‘Notable art blog’ list. Paddy Johnson is the Assistant editor of ArtCal. Her blog Art Fag City is listed under ‘Notable art blog’. Just seems odd to me. See http://www.artcal.net/about/

It seems that Culture Pundits is a project of Tristan Media LCC which is Barry Hoggard’s consulting firm. Barry is also an editor for ArtCal. His blog, bloggy.com is listed on the Culture Pundits blog list that is linked to this article. http://www.culturepundits.com/about. ArtCal is also owned by Tristan Media LLC. What is going on with this article? I have many doubts now. Artblogs (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it says under the edit box "edit mercilessly". Per WP:PROVEIT: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", that is a source outside the blog; reliable sources need to be independent of the subject, not commercial sponsors. Ty 13:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Culture Pundits links and have made the article more neutral. Artblogs (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon561789 has added the Culture Pundits link back and I believe Art Connect as well. See the issue with Culture Pundits above. Art Connect is a blog review site that is not a notable source as near as I can tell. Removing again. Artblogs (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To explain the reason why I added the Culture Pundits link back-in. I think an entry that does not fully explain to readers the nature of art blogs is lacking. Being part of a group like Culture Pundits, or going under an umbrella publishing vehicle - as, for example Tyler Green does - is something that readers should know about. My perspective is that a lot of people who will read this will be people who want to create art blogs, and so explaining what their options are - in a purely factual way, incorporating positives and negative perspectives - would be very useful information. So I think that a simple link is, on reflection, the wrong way to go; I think the entry should explain these aspects of the scene in a purely factual way - with referential marks given for (what this discussion is refers to) as the 'notable' aspects. (You could extend this line of thinking to talk about typepad, blogger, wordpress etc. but I think that would be a step too far - more appropriate for the 'blog' wiki. Perhaps the only notable thing is that so many people writing art blogs choose blogger.) Jonathon561789 (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC) And revised Jonathon561789 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you are coming from with Art Connect, in that they cover fewer blogs than, say, alltops - one of the other linked-to sites. However, the entries are far more detailed than anything else out there. I am told, by someone featured on the site, that they expect to have 100 entries on the site 'within a month'. Checking the site today, I can see about 30 entries. Last time I looked, they had less than half that. On this basis, and in keeping with the view I hold on Culture Pundits (i.e. that this is an aspect that should be factually incorporated), I think that this should be included. Jonathon561789 (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a guidebook for starting and profiting from an art blog. It is going to be hard enough to get people to understand the importance of art blogs as it is. If you start adding links to Culture Pundits and other ad networks for art bloggers you are going to harm the art blog article. If it loses a deletion debate it can be very hard to bring it back in the future. If you can find reliable sources that are specifically about Art Connect and Culture Pundits add them. I did some searches for Culture Pundits and found it is mentioned mostly on blogs associated with the Culture Pundits network or other sites owned by Barry Hoggard and Tristan Media LLC. Paddy Johnson's Art Fag City mentioned its launch but she is also an editor for Hoggard's ArtCal. A review like that is not helpful because it is a conflict of interest. Artblogs (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it should not be a guidebook, and so on. I also think your point that citations should not link to potentially mutually promotive sources is sound. I do think that we need to explain the art blogging landscape thoroughly though, and that an aspect of that is commercial. Not explaining this aspect will result in an incomplete 'pedia to my mind. Maybe the best approach would be to do so in an abstract way to start with, see what purely factual information can be included at that level, and then see if/what citations and/or other links are warranted. Jonathon561789 (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be added to critics of art blogs?

The article is not focused on art blogging but the critic mentions blog critics as a whole.

In an article titled Not Everybody’s a critic for the Los Angeles Times Richard Schickel stated, “Let me put this bluntly, in language even a busy blogger can understand: Criticism – and its humble cousin, reviewing – is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author’s (or filmmaker’s or painter’s) entire body of work, among other qualities.” Artblogs (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entry should contextualize the link between blogs and art blogs. If it then makes sense to include something like the above quote, then sure. At present I do not think the foundations of this entry are even in place. Jonathon561789 (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered that the meaning was to define different types of art blogs and to show how they compare to traditional media. We could have a section that defines what a personal art blog is and another that defines what an art blog that feature reviews and critiques is. Two very different things. I think it is important to detail the impact that art blogging has had as media changes and expands. I think the critics of art blogs sections are a good place for that. Artblogs (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed change in emphasis

If you take a look at a 'pedia entry for somewhere like Rome or Paris, you can immediately why we really need to change the emphasis of this entry. This entry cannot revolve around individuals. It should be focused on the development of the art blogging scene, and on describing the current state of the scene - incorporating some quantitative information. Jonathon561789 (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get over the debate about commercial interests, and this approach is the tried-and-tested one. The entry should not pretend there has been no commercial element to the development of the art blogging scene. Whether or not these aspects add or detract from the scene can then be set in proper context. Jonathon561789 (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions I would have as a reader include: what sort of art blogs are there; where is the crossover between art blogs and conventional outlets; how many art blogs are there. These are basic questions that are far more suited to a 'pedia than what we have now. If that approach is taken, the notable references sort themselves out in a way we see on other good wikipedia entries; references are made to the first art blogs (live and not - if we can ascertain the latter for sure), the most notable for a specific category and so on. Jonathon561789 (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Jonathon, with all due respect some of these individuals have helped establish the art blogging scene you mentioned. Paddy Johnson, Edward Winkleman, and Tyler Green are good examples. Butler has put together several art blog conferences at contemporary art fairs. When it comes to criticism there are only a few art bloggers that have been referenced in magazines. Some notable people view it as a movement in art criticism. The article can contain multiple directions. I guess what I’m saying is that people can work on basic info about art blogs while others focus on the art blog scene and the rise of art blog criticism. The important thing at this stage is to avoid anything that appears to be an ad. That is why I will stick to my guns about CP and a review site that only has trivial mentions online.

We agree with respect to PJ, EW, and TG; they did help establish the art scene; they would, in my mind, make excellent citations in the entry. I do not think that a list approach works though. I think that setting out a timeline, under the heading 'history', works, and citing notable examples within that context works too. With regards to CP and Art Connect, I think it would be appropriate to talk about the commercial aspect of the art blogging scene in non-specific and factual terms, and see where that takes the entry. Jonathon561789 (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I like the history idea. So it would be like a time line of influential blogs. How would you verify how long the blog has existed though? Maybe go by the date of the first entry? We need to think of how to define influence with art blogs also. What makes an art blog a good example of being influential or groundbreaking? Traffic ranking alone? The number of reviews the blogger has done of notable exhibits? The number of notable interviews on the blog? The number of critiques of notable artists? How many times the blog has been referenced on notable websites or publications? Should a combination of factors be considered? The commercial aspect could work but I don't think it is a priority yet and we would have to find reliable sources that mention how art blogs sustain themselves. Just throwing links in is not enough. Artblogs (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult. I think that a combination of indicators would ultimately need to be incorporated, but that is more work than is practicable. Perhaps start with one or two aspects, and then build more in with revisions? Given that there is more work than can be done, I would be in favour of de-prioritising the commercial aspect - although obviously someone may want to take it forward as a specific project. Jonathon561789 (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the ‘Notable art blogs’ to ‘Examples of art blogs’. I’ve said several times that maybe the list should go. Another option would be to mention specific bloggers in sections they are connected with if there is a reliable source to back the information. There are a few bios on Wikipedia already for noted art bloggers. Look up Mark Staff Brandl. He is a blogger and an editor for Art in America. It would be a good way to connect articles together in order to support the art blog article. Artblogs (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Artblogs' suggestion '...mention specific bloggers in sections they are connected with' is a good one. Jonathon561789 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references to the first art blogs by category or whatever must be reliable. You can find a lot of people making bold claims. I think it is impossible to know how many art bloggers there are. I do know that at least 40 have been referenced in reliable sources. There could be millions of art blogs but only 40 or so have stuck out with the media. We also need to make sure the article is global. Right now it mostly refers to American art bloggers. Are their any well known art bloggers in Europe or elsewhere? Artblogs (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of art bloggers. There are quite a few in the UK, some in Australia, and must be lots in Europe. I do not know how we could identify the latter groups though. Jonathon561789 (talk) 01:41, 19 January

- I think the Art Market Blog is based in Australia. This could be tough. Artblogs (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the onus, for now at least, would need to be on discovery i.e. hope that someone from Australia or a European country, for example, wants to contribute. Jonathon561789 (talk) 09:30, 19 January (UTC)

A change in emphasis made

The relationship between the mainstream media and art blogs (and vice versa), and 'other coverage' sections have been incorporated in order to improve this 'pedia entry. The relationship part should aim to decribe what is a recognised as an evolving relationship between the two parties. By placing the quoted articles in a timeline, improving the citations, removing some of the less incisive commentary, and merging two section into one, we should have a more balanced, better contextualised entry. The 'other coverage' section recognises that the art blog scene is evolving, and anticipates that further secondary coverage will emerge. Throughout, and within the external references section, citations or links that lead to insubstantial amounts or infrequently maintained content have been removed when judged appropriate. More specifically, a one-off list of recommended art blogs, which has now dated is not authorative even if it has been produced by an authorative organisation. The proposed next step will be to take individual references given in the examples of art blogs section, and include them in a breakdown which build on the opening section i.e. so that there are examples of art blog by type of content etc. instead. --Jonathon561789 15:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes made by Bachhawat2us

The changes made are quite significant, and bear some discussion.

I am not sure that this opening statement would match people's current beliefs: An art blog is a virtual meeting ground for artists, art collectors, art enthusiasts, critics and connoisseurs.

An art forum matches that description better.

Further the changes point to a specific website, 'talk art', as being an example of a good art blog. There seems no basis for this website to be nominated as such - not that it is a poor example, just that it is one type of art blog and not necessarily what all readers of this 'pedia entry would find most meritworthy.

Also the change removed some historical context, which seems appropriate.

On this basis I reverted the changes, and added some additional context, as the notion of a meeting ground is a useful addition.

Good move. I've never heard of Art Talk. Not saying it is not notable I just have not heard of it. When you say art blog some people think of blogs that artists use to promote their art, others instantly think of writers who have the same type of content you would fine in an art magazine, and other think of blogs that are used as a form of art.SunRiddled (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and art blogs

Can any of you help me out with the art blogs and politics section? I feel that it is needed because I know that key art bloggers have had politically driven articles linked by Huffington Post, NPR, and other notable sources. Hrag Vartanian's Hyperallergic has been a strong source for updates on art damaged in Egypt and other political controversies that have resulted in an artists death, arrest, or damage to art. Edward Winkleman, who I'm surprised there is not a Wikipedia article about yet, is widely known for writing about his liberal views and supporting Democrat policies. Brian Sherwin is probably one of the most politically conservative art writers blogging today. All of the notable art bloggers I can think of have spoken out against the arrest of Ai Weiwei and the censorship of A Fire in My Belly.SunRiddled (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2011

(UTC)

Removing art blogs from list of examples

Something still needs to be done about the list. There are blogs mentioned that have had no major media coverage and have not been established on Wikipedia as being maintained by a notable art blogger. The list should not be a global directory of art blogs. I question if a list should even be included but since there is a list it should at least feature notable art blogs and art bloggers. All of the blogs I'm removing I've been unable to find notable reliable sources for.SunRiddled (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed examples of art blogs to notable art blogs

If there must be a list on this article it would probably be best to only list art blogs and blogs that notable art bloggers are involved with kind of like the notable people section of most Wikipedia articles about towns and colleges. It might be good to list those notable blog / bloggers in a more organized way. Maybe list by country or if in the United States, by state or city.I'd like some feedback on this before I do anymore changes to this article.SunRiddled (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non US art blogs and art blog direction

There needs to be more info about art blogs worldwide. I doubt that the US and the UK are the only places to have had media coverage of art blogs. What are the notable art blogs from other countries and what has notable media said about them? I can also see how there can be confusion about what an art blog is. Is it a art news type of blog or is it a blog an artist uses to share images of art online? It can be both. Should that difference in art blog directions be more clear to readers?SunRiddled (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First art blog?

Is there anyway to find out what the first art blog was? Who maintained it? Should that be included if it can be discovered?SunRiddled (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to A to Z list

I noticed Talk Art was placed at the top of the list for some reason. The list is alphabetical. I moved it to where it should be. Try to keep the list alphabetical.GallonGalleon (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements over art blog list

I'm not sure why known art bloggers have been removed from the blog list. No explanation was offered. It also seems like the list represents the NY art scene heavily compared to the former version. I can't remember if Mat Gleason's blog was listed or not in the past. I will add it if there is no disagreement.GallonGalleon (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about Edward Winkleman? I think he was once listed.GallonGalleon (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Art blog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 18:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]