Jump to content

Talk:Brian Sherwin

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

More sources

[edit]

More sources have been added to the article and the refs have been cleaned up to look better presentation wise. Does anyone have thoughts on how to improve it further? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Some info on his Juxtapoz contributions. Are they essays, critiques or interviews etc? Ty 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found his interviews on the Juxtapoz site and there was a video interview with Anthony Lister as well. I'll go hunt the links down again. Ty, do you think Sherwin could be considered a militant critic for supporting movements like Stuckism and Defastenism? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I should reword that. I don't think Sherwin has openly supported Stuckism or Defastenism. He simply gave them a platform to speak from as he has done with other artists. He seems to be a very neutral person with a wide range of acceptance. I'm sure he has his motives though. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
If a ref says he's a militant critic, then it can be said. If not, it can't, as it would be original research. Ty 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links from Juxtapoz. These topics are all picked by the editors of the site who are also editors of the magazine. Juxtapoz has a decent Alexa ranking and an insane following online.

http://www.juxtapoz.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1891

http://www.juxtapoz.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1581&Itemid=50

http://www.juxtapoz.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1476&Itemid=62

http://www.juxtapoz.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1118&Itemid=50

http://www.juxtapoz.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2956&Itemid=50

(Roodhouse1 (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Video interview with Anthony Lister http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQBFzh9qsvI (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Re. video and Juxtapoz ref: it mentions myartspace, but not sherwin, so not relevant. Ty 01:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If info is in a ref, then make use of it, as I've done here.[1] Ty 01:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preview: Xiaoqing Ding & Jason D'Aquino http://www.juxtapoz.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1476&Itemid=62

Should the above be added because "recently interviewed on myartspace" would mean the interview he (or is it she?) had with Sherwin.

Also, the Lister video interview mentioned on Juxtapoz links back to myartspace, but as we know all of the interviews and videos can be found at myartspace.com/interviews. Is that something that should be included in external links?

And I just noticed that the Silvey info does not work because the myartspace link is simply to his myartspace account. However, I did see him on the list of interviewed artists. It does not work for a ref though.

What about CVs and resumes for artists of note that can be found online? Aleksandra Mir for example? Should the mention of Sherwin in her biblio be considered a ref to show his importance as an interviewer? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If Sherwin is mentioned in X's biblio, then where X is in the list of interviewees, put a ref next to X's name which would be the page on X's site where the mention of Sherwin occurs. This is a good way to assert notability - the fact that noted artists consider it worthwhile to include his interviews in their biblios. Ty 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link showing Sherwin on Aleksandra Mir's resume. Mir has been mentioned in several top art magazines, the New York Times, and has shown at the Tate, Saatchi's, and the Mary Boone Gallery as well as other important venues. Trying to track down other resumes and more information on Sherwin. I'm mostly doing Yahoo and Google searches. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

conflict of interest assumption

[edit]

Concerning the conflict of interest claim. I would like to point out that the Sherwin article was nominated for deletion on the 6th of May and the result was keep. The article is extremely neutral in tone and several people have made changes to it in good faith. As for ELNO, it states the following "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". According to the consensus of the deletion vote Sherwin is notable and in that case a recognized authority on art due to his interviews and exhibit reviews. So I don't see why links to the Myartspace Blog would be blocked. If you feel that the external links on artist bios going to the interview they had with Sherwin is not needed feel free to remove them. They had been removed before by an anonymous person without a reason as to their removal. Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene are both art bloggers as well that are respected and notable so I wonder if I will have the same problems once I contribute those bios? I learned really quick from my first experience that it is best to have everything worked out before contributing. I'm still very new to this so your suggestions are appreciated. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see any major problem with the article, and nothing has, as yet, been posted here to indicate any extant problems. Ty 04:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The area that looks a bit iffy to me is when it gets into describing other artists' achievements and qualifications in a kind of notability-by-association way (the three paragraphs starting at "The work of several of these artists ..."). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that can go. It arose out of the AfD discussion, and was a slight misunderstood conflation of the need to show notability and provide sources, i.e. Roodouse1 thought he was following advice by inserting it. Ty 05:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall I was advised by an admin to add that. But I think the mention of specific artists of note that Sherwin has interviewed and the link to the cv inclusion above that is enough to support the bio without that other info. I'm all for it.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
If artists have mentioned the Sherwin interview in their biblio that might be worth using as a ref (or an additional ref). Ty 05:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the first para. I think the second is valid, as Juxtapoz talks specifically about his interview. I'm posting the third para below, as ref doesn't mention Sherwin. If there is a ref that says he co-curated it, then that part can go back. I think the info about the judges would then be valid, as it is informative about his work and who he is collaborating with on projects. Ty 05:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be used? Did some searches and found this http://www.stuckism.com/Sherwin.html I also found an article of controversy involving Sherwin but it was on a profile of some artist upset with him so I don't think that would be considered reliable would it?(Roodhouse1 (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
It seems like a useful third party source. What is the URL of the controversial one? Ty 09:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Para cut from article as stated above

[edit]

In 2007, Sherwin co-curated the opening of the Myartspace New York, New York 2007 exhibit at the McCormack Gallery in Chelsea. An accompanying art competition was judged by Jessica Morgan, curator of contemporary art at the Tate Modern, James Rondeau, curator of contemporary art at the Art Institute of Chicago and Steven Zevitas, Publisher and Editor of New American Paintings.[1]

I'll see what I can find. I know there is a video of the opening on youtube. Different wording might help.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

References

  1. ^ "myartspace.com New York, New York 2007 Exhibition", ArtCal. Retrieved 8 May 2008.


Archive?

[edit]

Should this page be archived so that fresh conversation is easier to find? I'm not sure how to do it. Artblogs (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can if you want. I don't personally think it needs to, but if you would like to, this page explains how to do it. J.delanoygabsadds 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Notable or not?

[edit]

DanielRigal has flagged this bio as not notable. I've been citing Sherwin's interviews on Wikipedia because I thought the consensus was that his work as a critic and interviewer is notable. It has been a helpful resource for improving visual art Wikipedia articles. If you look at the article you will see that his work has been cited in Juxtapoz, The Boston Globe, and other notable sources. So which is it? Artblogs (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know. That is why I tagged it as I did. If I thought he definitely was not notable I would have tagged the article for deletion. The general view on Wikipedia seems to be that a blogger who has had a few passing mentions in mainstream media is not notable but a blogger who has had significant coverage in mainstream media is notable. See if you can dig up references that show significant coverage. There is no need to remove your use of him as a source for other articles just yet but you might want to make sure that all your articles could survive without him if they had to. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to dig anything up. Consensus has been made twice with keep. I'm going by the deletion debates and based on those it appears that notablility was established. He is a controversial writer and critic and it appears that this sort of thing happens everytime there is a controversy he writes about. Because of that I thought that this was made in bad faith. You have to admit that your call for deletion implies that Sherwin was directly involved with the two artists with no proof. The Sherwin post makes it clear that the work is by the two artist and opens saying that Stern contacted him with the content. Wikipedia is not a place for assumptions and it is not a place to flag bios without viewing deletion debates and discussion pages first. That defeats the purpose of past consensus. If you feel there is a problem with notability fine but flagging things on a whim without even bothering to read is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not about what you know or think you know it is about consensus. Artblogs (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for anything to be deleted except Wikipedia Art, which you also agree should be deleted. I only asked for the other stuff to be looked at. Please do not misrepresent my position. The fact that the articles survived AfD does not mean that they should not be tagged for improvement. There is no reason to expect every minor tagging to be discussed here. If an article is inadequately referenced then it will be tagged. There is no need for a consensus. You are making far too much out of a couple of minor tags. If I got upset every time one of my favourite articles got tagged I would be forever arguing, mostly with the 'bots (and that is rarely productive). I am going to remove the notability one now but I am leaving the one about inadequate references. If anybody can add some better references then they should just take that tag off. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As most of the text is referenced, the refimprove tag is not helpful. It would be better to remove that, and tag specific statements which you consider dubious with the {{fact}} tag. Ty 23:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will try to do that. I will take the refimprove off and will try to come back a bit later and flag some specific problems. In general, my problem here is that there is too much reliance on non-RS sources. Bloggers and artists naturally form up into communities that enthusiastically support eachother so RS sources are far better at gauging wider notability and status. I do appreciate that it can be frustrating writing about blogging precisely because it is possible for a blogger to be very influential in their blog communities and still fail to make much of a mark in RS sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DanielRigal, I thought at first it was vandalism since this bio has been attacked before. When I found the Wikipedia Art debate after viewing your contribs I had a better understanding. But I will say you should always assume good faith. It can get ridiculous on here at times. Sherwin has been cited in Juxtapoz, Hi Fructose, The Boston Globe and other notable sources that are listed. I think there were more before the vandal attack though. He is not just a blogger because his writings have been published and he has curated and co-curated exhibits. The blog is not just a blog it is also an opt-in e-zine. I think the problem is that people read "blogger" and automatically assume it is just another art blog. Artblogs (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a blog in the normal sense of a one-man band without oversight, as Sherwin is on the staff of an edited site, myartspace, and uses the blog format to upload specific material, most often interviews, as part of the site. Most of the refs are not from the blogging community. Ty 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the CP feature back. Artblogs (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Punk

[edit]

Should the Conservative Punk headline involving Sherwin's criticism of Shepard Fairey be added back? There is some confusion on whether Conservative Punk is self published or not. Not sure if it should be used or not because Conservative Punk did survive a deletion debate but it was as non consensus.Artblogs (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with this particular use of it.[2] There is no absolute bar on SPS. Per Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources: "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution." The only use of the source is to say that it featured something. It is an entirely reliable source for what it has featured. It is not used to verify any other matter. Ty 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a blogger linked to someone elses blog is encyclopedic content???? no. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason for removal was "CPunk appears to be a self published blog and not a WP:RS". That reason has been refuted. You have now raised an entirely different point. As to whether a "blogger", or site editor maybe, let's just say A, linking to another "blogger", actually a "Senior Contributing Editor"[3], let's just say B, is worth including or not, that depends entirely on the nature of A and B. In this case A has achieved national and international attention, MSNBC,The Guardian, The New York Times, so the fact that he has chosen to highlight B's text is certainly worth including and also his opinion that it is "a pretty good case". Ty 01:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning did not change, it had 2 parts - the first was easy to fit in the summary box. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Do not assume other editors are psychic and don't pull AGF please: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." Curiously, I seem to have been able to fit both parts in the edit summary, as you can see from the edit summary for this post. However, that is hardly the point. Ty 03:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably a good thing that we are not psychic. :-)
Back to the actual content of the article. IF the community has decided that Conservative Punk has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking as a reliable source, which I am not sure we have, then my concerns in the edit summary would be met and we would move on to my second concern - the actual content of the CP post. If in CP Rizzuto had analyzed the Sherwin blog post and from Rizzuto's analysis and commentary we pulled "a pretty good case" as a summary description of Rizzuto's analysis, I would be fine with that as encyclopedic content. However, "a pretty good case" is the sum total of Rizzuto's "analysis" in the post. To me, "a pretty good case" seems "a pretty bad case" for including something in an encyclopedia.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since more authors are taking the blog route issues like this will become a problem on Wikipedia. It establishes the idea that only mainstream media is reliable and there are many cases of mainstream media not being reliable. Is the New York Times not reliable because they have botched some reporting? There is a difference between just a blog and a media source that uses a blog format. Anyone can create a blog but not everyone can have a following. That goes for A and B in this case. Mashable and Techcrunch both have a blog format and they are cited all the time. Artblogs (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One can have a large following and not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy; and can have small following and have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The NYT does indeed have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking and on those occasions when their accuracy and fact checking fail, it makes news because it is such a rare phenomenon. Is there a discussion somewhere on Wikipedia where the community has determined that Conservative Punk has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking or are the statements in traditional reliable sources that comment on Conservative Punks reliability? Either will satisfy me that my initial concern has been met. And then if necessary we can move to my second concern. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Could you please specify the fact that you doubt CP is a reliable source for, as the only things I can see are:

  1. CP is used as a source to verify that Sherwin's article is mentioned on the CP site, for which CP is by definition a reliable source
  2. CP is used as a source to verify that Rizzuto has made a particular comment on Sherwin's article. As Rizzuto runs the CP site, again it is by definition a reliable source to verify that he has made a statement on the CP site about something.

Here is the link to the site.[4] Ty 13:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to post that here. I added the CP feature back.Artblogs (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Should the fact that he interviewed the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, be included? He interviewed Wales for Myartspace after the Wikipedia Art controversy. See, http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/05/art-space-talk-jimmy-wales-part-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlapFlip (talk • contribs) 23:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why not. Add it if you want. Ty 14:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added information about the Wales interview and organized the article.SunRiddled (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing for other sites

[edit]

Sherwin also writes for a site called FineArtStudioOnline. The FineArtViews blog there has interviews Sherwin did with Saul Ostrow and other art critics. Should this be mentioned? Does Sherwin still write for Myartspace?SunRiddled (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also found that Sherwin has interviewed authors. Janet Evanovich, http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm/author_number/232/Janet-Evanovich and Anne Bishop, look under March 2011 http://www.annebishop.com/a.news.html and White Zombie bassist Sean Yseult, http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=147850 I'm not sure where I should put this info though.SunRiddled (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the part about being an artist be removed?

[edit]

Looking over this again I wonder if that should be left out. While he may be an artist he is not necessarily notable because of his art. It appears that he might have had some regional success with his art. But he is notable because of his art writing and criticism not the creation of art itself. Or is that info to be considered general information about him? Thoughts?SunRiddled (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Brian Sherwin. 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) 08:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Sherwin&oldid=1204853314"