Talk:List of contemporary artists/Archive 1

Archive 1

Artfacts.net

Are folks aware that the website artfacts.net (as well as the German Kunstkompass) provides quick shorthand rankings of artists based on their inclusion in various exhibitions and collections? Of course the rankings fluctuate but it's a quick way of gauging someone's standing within the larger art world. The current version of this list includes artists with extreme relative variations in standing. Blima3000 (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I'd like to propose that we make sure that artists listed here have achieved some degree of acceptance within the art world as important contemporary artists. One way to determine that is that an artist has been exhibited widely and has been reviewed in the art press. Therefore, if they don't appear much in Art Index, they could be considered not appropriate for this list. Art Index is probably the oldest (1929) and most most widely available index which covers hundreds of major art publications. Therefore, it could be one of our standard "tests" to use in determining an artist's appropriateness for this List. Any thoughts?--Sue Maberry 02:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This list includes many non-notable artists. -Will Beback 22:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples? I've looked over the list and most seem to be of an international reputation. Having a page on wikipedia is step one. Having an internaional track-record is step two (major exhibitions, biennales, etc.). Freshacconci

Problems with "Contemporary art" definition

THIS DEFINITION IS MORE OR LESS OK: This is a list of contemporary artists, i.e. whose peak of activity can be situated somewhere between the 1970s (the advent of postmodernism) and the present day.

BUT THIS PART IS A PROBLEMATIC DEFINITION: Artists in this list have proven their importance because their work has been shown in contemporary art exhibitions of worldwide importance, such as the documenta or the Venice Biennale, the Sao Paulo Art Biennial or exhibited in major modern or contemporary art museums and institutes.

WHY? BECAUSE IT PUTS ALL THE LIVING ARTIST INTO ONE SLOT!!! THERE MUST BE A POSSIBILITY TO CHARACTERIZE THE LIVING ARTISTS AND THEIR GENRES MORE ACCURATELY. OTHERWISE THE ERA WE ARE LIVING LOOKS ODD FROM THE VARIATION POINT OF VIEW IN THE FUTURE.

THIS TEXT IS MORE TRUE BUT STILL OVERLAPPING IS MUCH MORE WIDE SPREAD: There may be some overlap with the list of modern artists, since it is difficult to define the boundaries between modern and contemporary art.

PROPOSAL: LETS CREATE MORE FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM TO CATEGORIZE CURRENT ART STYLES! GIVE PROPOSALS HERE, I WORK FOR IT TOO! Jari Lindstrom, recearcher

Jari - thanks for your input. Certainly there is going to be overlap with earlier artistic eras. Pigeonholes aren't perfect. However individual artists can appear on more than one list. Another concern I have is that non-notable artists are being added. Of course it's natural for an artist, or an artist's admirer, to add their name, but I think that we should either change the defnition or enforce it. (PS thanks for signing your comment. If you get a username you only have to type four tildes "~" to sign. Oh, and please keep the CAPITALS to a minimum when writing- it's like SHOUTING!!!!) Cheers, -Willmcw 23:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Added Ida Applebroog to the list and wrote a brief bio. Funkstart 3:30, 20 Nov 2005

I quite agree with Jari except for the living artist part - many artists who have contributed to contemporary visual art since the 60's - 70's like Eva Hess or Robert Smithson have passed to the great beyond, but they should still exist on the page. This "Biennial-centric" idea of what constitutes contemporary practice rarely allows for 2nd, 3rd and 4th world artist a chance to be represented.

You might try having a list that separates contemporary artists who exhibit locally, (within their respective cities and towns), ones that exhibit nationally and ones that are internationally recognized. If they are local or regional perhaps, they could be separated in accordance with their nationalities (where they reside most of the time). This could be further broken down into the sub-disciplines of practice i.e. installation, sculpture, photography etc...

Often artists garner attention by being in the right place at the right time. Many contemporary artists very rarely become "art stars" some are academics and some operate very well within their communities.

The job of editing this certainly is not easy and I wish you luck. Troy David Ouellette, Contemporary Artist

Criteria

Artists should not be listed unless there is a page dedicated to the artist. Then from the details listed it can be judged whether the artist is worthy of inclusion....or even exists. Presumably the idea of the page is to gather together in one place the names of the most prominent or interesting artists working today so that, by following the links, someone can obtain an overview of the contemporary art scene. Pliny 17:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The list needs attention

This page needs a lot of attention. The criteria is fine, but all the artists listed don't really fit. I have a good well researched list [1] which I will put up here soon as I get a chance. I may delete of lot of the artists who aren't that promient. Any objections?--Sue Maberry 02:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to get art historians and people knowledgeable about the arts involved!

Laurence Gartel

For sure he belongs here. He's one of the digital art pioneers. Also Professor Herbert W. Franke belongs here. Proof: [2] Who will decide who belongs here or not.

Dead artists

I removed a few names from the list. Warhol, Tony Smith. They're dead and their prime was a while back. I left a few of the recently deceased, but as a rule, shouldn't being pretty much alive and working be the minimum criteria for being contemporary? Freshacconci 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rob Erdle, (born 1949) is now dead (last week), but his peak was definitely after 1970. His first national show was in 1973. Someone deleted him from the list as non-notable, but I cannot imagine that they read his article, because he meets the criteria discussed above, except that he is now dead. --Bejnar 03:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Terry Ananny Canadian Painter

As a Canadian living artist born in 1956, the artwork of Terry Ananny certainly meets the criteria for inclusion in the List of Contemporary Artists. Her works have been reproduced on UNICEF, Children's Wish Foundation, Cornerstone 52 Foundation, Canadian Greetings and Canada Save Children cards in the years 1998, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008. As well, her works have been exhibited for the past two decades in Canada and the United States, including 2003 New York Art Expo. Her original work has been collected worldwide and is held in hundreds of corporate and private collections. For example her works are held in the collections of past Canadian Prime Minister's Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney, Canada Mortgage and Housing, Industry Canada, Canadian Embassy, Brussels Belgium, Canadian Medical Association, Microsoft, CTV Television, NHL Ottawa Senator's Hockey Club to name a few. Her work has reached mass contemporary audiences by the extensive publishing of her work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Rushmore (talk • contribs) 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

However, as it says at the top of the list, "Artists in this list have gained recognition or proven their importance because their work has been shown in contemporary art exhibitions of worldwide importance, such as the documenta or the Venice Biennale, the Sao Paulo Art Biennial or exhibited in major modern or contemporary art museums and institutes." She does not fit this criteria. Her achievements are such that she's notable enough to have an article. However this list is meant for artists of historical and academic importance, which is decided through major exhibitions (i.e. internationally renowned museums), the major biennials and so on. Ananny's work is mainly shown outside this context. freshacconcispeaktome 16:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

DEFINITION, split proposition

As there is no universally accepted definition of what an artist is and therefore I propose it split the list in something like "artists exhibited on the somethingsomething biennale." etc. etc. Sid Meyer, Dirk Meyer or Svankmajer could well be seen as contemporary artists, though not the kind traded on art markets. 79.216.241.153 (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The criteria have been in place for years and are appropriate.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Slava Polunin

His work is influenced by various modern artists, such as René Magritte, Kazimir Malevich and Mihail Chemiakin, and therefore constitutes modern art. His approach is widely avant-garde and despite being considered a part of pop culture (being a stage icon in the USSR since the 1980's and having a successful off-Broadway spectacle), he is still a "contemporary artist" by definition. Drone2Gather (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He does not fit the criteria at the top of the page though? It is not merely a list of ALL contemporary artists. Teapotgeorge^Talk 08:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you count the independent film festival in Venice as a significant artistic event? Drone2Gather (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the film festival is not a viable venue per se..While the Venice Biennale is a significant event in the world of contemporary art; the film festival by itself isn't...It is significant however to the film world and to the entertainment world...Modernist (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

He also participated in one of Chemiakin's exhibits at the Venice carnival, forgot which year though. Drone2Gather (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is an issue of semantics and subjectivity. I don't think there's a concern about notability here. He is clearly notable and I'm sure there's plenty of lists that he would be perfectly suitable. This list tends to be pretty specific for gallery-based artists who have reached the pinnacle of success for visual artists. The problem here is the same problem when determining the difference between performers (theatre, dance, etc.) and performance artists who are generally considered to be part of the world of visual art, even when what they do is actually theatrical. It's confusing and I've never been able to come up with a good solution to the issue of why a performer is also not a performance artist. I guess the only comparison I can think of would be a list of notable actors which is limited to those in critically acclaimed films or award-winners, and even that comparison is faulty. Let's just say being in the Venice Biennale is somewhat parallel to winning an Oscar. It's about as successful as you can get outside winning state honours like a knighthood in the UK. The definition for criteria in this list was established by consensus before I got here and it's been maintained by a group of editors pretty rigorously. The problem with this list is the problem with all such lists. It creates a two-tiered definition of notability. An artist is notable enough to have an article but not notable enough to be on a list of notable artists. I don't pretend that's not a problem. Until a better solution is suggested, I think this list will remain rather exclusive and medium-specific to visual artists within the international museum and biennale culture. Usually, the attempts at adding to this list that are removed are pretty uncontroversial, young artists adding their own name to the list. Not fitting the established criteria, they are deleted. Every once in a while, however, an artist comes along to make us rethink or at least re-evaluate the criteria. So, Polunin is a notable performer and probably does fit into many other lists but not within the criteria established in this list. freshacconci talktalk 21:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you indeed for clarifying the subject as it is somewhat confusing. You might want to add a sentence to the opening paragraph about not including actual performers in the list. Also, I find the title rather unfair since this list is much more limited than the title commands. I would think of a better description and request to move the page. Drone2Gather (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gregory Edwards

Why are the dates of Gregory Edwards 1981-2007 whereas it's never said he's dead on his own Wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.76.21.99 (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Sarkissian (artist)

I can find no exhibitions in major modern or contemporary art museums and institutes for Sarkissian? His article was also created and is mostly edited by user Henmor who has a conflict of interest. Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

got it. sorry to give you more work.Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

criteria are NOT very scientifical

So I have changed the criteria. Only using official selections made by organisors of this kind of exhibitions is not a good base to establish relevant criteria to create a full and complete list of important contempory artist for an encyclopia. Sometimes this selection were vague, or not clearly defined, or were led by personal taste and even commercial motives (influenced by art investors). The quality or condition of being important as an artist is also depending on the attention these artists are given by modern media as internet, radio and television. Its also depending on the way they are influencing other artists today. By the way when one uses the old citeria what are artists like Damon Denys or Guy Denning doing on the list. Even with the new criterias they would probably not be one it. it is not consistent. With the new criterias we can add important artist like Odd Nerdrum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdboeck (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work! I see the reason in the changes.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A newbie editor, with a clear conflict of interest adds an artist who doesn't fit the criteria and then decides to arbitrarily change the criteria - doesn't work here, sorry...The criteria includes: major accomplishments like being in the documenta or the Venice Biennale, the Sao Paulo Art Biennial or exhibited in major modern or contemporary art museums and institutes. Before any further changes develop consensus here first...Modernist (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Modernist, I saw your comment here after I undid your change. Thanks for commenting. I don't agree, though, that Hdboeck's newly registered Wikipedia status bears any weight in this discussion. Hdboeck has made reasonable changes that I doubt will flood the page with creators of horrid art.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Abe before any changes are made to criteria a consensus agreement needs to be met. A lot of editors work here, I agree one artist added will do no harm but the criteria is something to be agreed upon before changes are made...Modernist (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the change and the explanation given here by Hdboeck, that's why I haven't reverted those changes, but rather reverted your changes. Please cite your reason or reasons for wanting the more limiting criteria. Other editors? What say you all?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Freshacconci, criteria that "has long been established" doesn't prove that it meets Wikipedia's needs today. Let's actually try to reach a consensus one way or the other.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The list is not very satisfactory. If it retains its present title, then the definition given is not appropriate, and should default instead to wiki policy of WP:V + guideline WP:N. Alternatively start a List of contemporary artists in major shows and museums and keep this one as a broader list. Whichever, I suggest rigorous insistence on referencing and removal of anything which doesn't meet that. See List of people who converted to Christianity as a good example. The bold in the lead is not standard and looks ugly. I suggest changing the format to date as in List of American artists 1900 and after. Ty 00:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the wording could use some work. I'm removing the bolding (assuming no one objects; happy to discuss, as always) but don't feel familiar enough with the period to venture new criteria. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to add that I'm not particularly in love with this list (nor any Wikipedia lists for that matter). Likewise, I was not one of the editors who created the list and its criteria – I believe it was pretty much as it is now when I first started editing here. I've been helping to maintain it according to the established criteria, but there are some issues that should be addressed. If a living artist meets notability guidelines, they are by definition contemporary. I see the purpose of this list as to be selective to indicate the highest level of achievement in visual art. You may not agree with there being a "highest" level but that doesn't change the fact that Damian Hirst, Matthew Barney and most others on this list are discussed in academic publications and collected in major museums. So the purpose of this list as I saw it was to give an indication of that international level of success which most living artists never achieve. Unfortunately, it has also given way to judgments on quality under the guise of maintaining the established criteria. I may even be guilty of that myself. However, I could probably name more than a few artists on this list that I would consider to make bad art. That doesn't change that a given artist has shown at Venice and Sao Paulo and Whitney. It may show evidence of lazy curating, but that's not for Wikipedia to decide. Perhaps Ty is correct and a new name would be appropriate, to indicate artists who are showing at this level. Maybe a list of contemporary artists is too vague a concept to maintain properly, other than to indicate living artists and to distinguish them from modern artists. I don't know what the answer is, but the recent changes aren't helping, and I realize there may be a language barrier her, but I fail to understand what "mass media" has to do with it. If we are using mass media as a qualifier, you can pretty much remove every Canadian from the list since no Canadian media outlet talks about visual art unless it's Robert Bateman. I have a feeling the same is true in most countries other than Britain. freshacconci talktalk 01:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the wording, and the list criteria can definitely be improved and rewritten if need be. Thanks Kafka Liz for removing the Bold - it is a welcome change...Modernist (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

this criteria remain unscientifically

I am editing already a long time under different names. I have worked in different countries and compueters and forgot a lot my logins. Wikipedia is free encyclopedia. And if you want to discuss on a proper way you have to respond on my critics about the old criteria which were not sufficient for the standards of wikipedia. The new criteria which I am proposing are more complete and more suitable for a complete list of contempory artists. You have to know a lot about the subject of contempory art ofcourse to apply this criteria. Please, do some efforts and research when you decide to erase knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdboeck (talk • contribs) 23:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are aware of WP:Sockpuppet criteria as well...Modernist (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This addition is absurd - it is too subjective and is not WP:NPOV because the claim of influence is way too vague and mass media and contemporary art do not coincide, what planet do you people live on? Artists in this list have gained recognition or proven their importance because their work is influencing a relevant amount of other artists today, or is considered as significant by mass media is unacceptable...Modernist (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Modernist is correct, and as I've said in the edit summary on the article page, the onus is on the editor wishing to change something which contradicts consensus to provide a legitimate and lucid argument, not the other way around. All that is apparent right now is one editor is attempting to place a specific name on the list, which is possibly a conflict of interest situation, and is attempting to change some established criteria in order to justify inclusion of that name. Likewise, given the nature of the edits and Hdboeck's admission of using multiple accounts, the "agreement" between Hdboeck and Abie above is suspect. I see that Modernist has has brought this to the Visual Arts Project talk page and warned Hdboeck about the 3RR rule. In short, Hdboeck/Abie needs to establish consensus here before continuing to make changes on the main article page and reverting at least 3 other editor's changes. freshacconci talktalk 00:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's not appropriate to make a change, then, when it's reverted, to insist on replacing it, without having gained consensus to do so. See WP:BRD. Ty 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Ty, Freshacconci, and Modernist. The newly introduced "criteria" are vague to point of uselessness, and there is no consensus for the change. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree also. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

the real discussion

Please respond on the content of discussion and not by words and sayings as "absurd" or "unacceptable" or " what planet do you people live on" without clear argumentation. Don't refer to irrelevant wikipedia status. This has nothing to do with the discussion. My old name was on wikipedia vancouverart. I have forgot the password for this account and my old email adress is unreachable beacause i changed my provider. Then I changed it into hdeboeck, but this connected with emailadress which i don't use anymore .This are all death accounts for years already. Hdboeck is the only one and the others doesn't exist anymore.

Bach to the real discussion. This is an encyclopedia and you have provide people a relevant but complete list of important contempory artists. There are artist who influenced a lot of other artists, get a lot of media attention or which works are surprisingly expensive because of the influence of important collectors and who DIDN'T were selected by some curators and organisers of important exhibitions. You have to know how the artworld works. I am working in it and doing research. This has a lot of reasons, sometimes because of these artists are mostly refusing to work with museum (Odd Nerdrum) or are living in isolation (Sam Dillemans). Still these are very known figurs (in the auction, media and art environments) The other way around: they are also artist who were selected by important curators of important exhibition but didn't manage to become important figures in the artworld. Are they artist who belong on relevant list of important contempory artists? According to the old criteria they do. This however makes them not important and makes the list less relevant.

And I am sorry, modernist, mass media and contempory art do coincide. Ever heard of Yoko Ono? Artists and curators are using mass media to promote their work (Luc Tuymans, ...)

To Kafka Liz: Not the new, but the old criteria are vague and arbitrary. see my previous post: "Only using official selections made by organisors of this kind of exhibitions is not a good base to establish relevant criteria to create a full and complete list of important contempory artist for an encyclopia. Sometimes this selection were vague, or not clearly defined, or were led by personal taste and even commercial motives (influenced by art investors). The quality or condition of being important as an artist is also depending on the attention these artists are given by modern media as internet, radio and television. Its also depending on the way they are influencing other artists today. "

Errasing well defined criteria just because we didn't reached a concensus is not suitable We didn't reached a consensus because people refuse to respond on the real content of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdboeck (talk • contribs) 01:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated earlier I am not opposed to Sam Dillemans or to Odd Nerdrum, I am opposed to you unilaterally changing criteria (which I do not agree with by the way) to suit your edit, uh I think I might of added Yoko Ono to this list, yes I have heard of her...Modernist (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Precisely!, the whole discussion started when I was putting artists like Dillemans on to the list. A user who probably is thinking that the Greenwich line is coming trough his brains felt that it was necessary to errase the artists name because it didn't fit the criteria above (like he would know in some seconds who and who is not in the cataloques of all the important exhibition in the world). WE can not tollerate this kind of intellectual arrogance, simply because it has notting to do with intellect or a smart remark. Rather with the opposite. I changed the criteria. The criteria are an attempt to create a good indicator for known contempory artists, but aren't sufficient to create a complete list of important contempory artists. Only looking at an official selection made by modernist institutions with their own aesthetical preferences is good start, but isn't enough. A lot of curators are led by personal preferences to select artist (because they have know them personally or invested in their work and are selecting them to pump up the auction prices). There are also a group of important artists who are considered as important by media ( for instants a documentary about the life and work of Dillemans won the fipa d'or in France which is one the most important festivals for television) or collectors (for instants whether you like or not it the neo-romantical work of Scottish painter Jack Vettriano is valued from 500.000 dollars up to 1000.000 dollars and more, should he be on the list or is he not a artist because his work isn't selected yet for the exhibition or museums one's refering to in the old criteria). An other example: Odd Nerdrum. He is not selected by any of this kind of exhibitions and with the exception of the metroplitan in NY he is not represented in important world wide known collections, but he still is a media figure in Scandinavia, influencing a lot of young artists today and is represented in some private collection of media figures like Madonna and David Bowie The old criteria are therefor to narrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdboeck (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The discrepancy between the name of this list and the criteria for inlusion is a problem, but the edit you keep insisting on doesn't solve it. I think notability should suffice for a "List of contemporary artists", and if a more exclusive list of heavyweights is the goal it will need a new name. Ewulp (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You left this message on my talk page:

"you can not just undo something. Please join the discussion by real posts and then when you have real arguments about the real content of the discussion, then you can change something."

Seems a bit dismissive. To Repeat: I am in favor of an inclusive article. It is not clear to me that the criteria you have proposed can be distinguished from notability. Ewulp (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I gave several valuable arguments for changing the criteria. I put my time in it. A lot of users don't give any response to the content of what I am writing about(Just one sentence without arguments and immediattly making changes in the article) Please join the discussion on a proper way by firm and solid posts. Why should this criteria should be restricted by something as the selection of official exhibition. The world of art is larger then that. You have important private collections, media and artistic influence on other artists. This criteria are more difficult to apply. You have to do more researche, but this is an encyclopedia with hopefully writers who work with academic intentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdboeck (talk • contribs) 11:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, agian and again. It has to be discussed on a proper way (with a little essay on this discussion page) when changes are made. Your are commanding your views without clear argumentation (pro and contra). This is censorship. Just deleting inconvenient definitions without a clear reason. The old criteria were not sufficiant to create a full and encyclopedical list of contempory artists. Not every artist can be on that list, but the criteria based on the catalogue of some modernist exhibitions is too narrow. Whatever you agree on, personal views on art like being a fan of modernistic institutions should not be mingled with the goal of an encyclopedia like wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdboeck (talk • contribs) 13:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"because their work is influencing a relevant number of other artists today, or is considered as significant by mass media" The new wording is clumsy and unverifiable? What is a "relevant number"? what is "significant" ? Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Protected from editing to give time for discussion and consensus and avoid editors being blocked over this. Ty 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

As far as I can tell the definition at the top of the page was originally placed there in 2004 and remains more or less intact.

I would like a vote as to who thinks it should remain as is, vote - (support)

and who wants it to be rewritten or changed, vote - (oppose)

As is

1. Support - Modernist (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Support ...but I agree with Ty and Ewulp that the issue is whether or not a list should define parameters for inclusion in addition to notability. Personally I like a selective list, but I'm willing to defer to editors who know more about lists than I do.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Support & agree with last comment. An unselective list is little more use than a category. The new criteria were in any case far too vague & subjective. Oddly, this page gets about 10,000 hits a month, so we should get it right. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. I have no objections to expanding the criteria for inclusion, but it must make sense and most importantly be clear to users (i.e. why are these artists listed and others are not). The proposed change makes no sense, and even an attempt by another editor to fix the grammar but keep the wording was reverted by the editor who wrote the initial change. This is obviously a high-traffic page, so as Johnbod says, we need to fix this and make it work for everyone, not just one editor. freshacconci talktalk 16:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. I think the writing could be a bit sharper, as I stated above, but the proposed new wording just makes things more muddled. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. A rigorous dependence on a finite group of authorities (as in List of major opera composers) would be ideal. I don't know if there's any way that model could be adapted for this list, but our parameters can be explained with greater clarity. Ewulp (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Changed

1. I support the change proposed by Hdboeck.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

I think we are in agreement that the 2004 definition is largely ok but it can be updated and refined. Here are some suggestions that I can agree with, Please add refinements and maybe we can arrive at a workable definition:

1. Selective list, sharp inclusion parameters, perhaps a broadening of international exhibition records; a strict adherence to references and notability via WP:V and WP:N...Modernist (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree with above. The name change suggested by Ty seems mandatory for a selective list. Johnbod notes that this page gets about 10,000 views per month--I presume most are redirected here after typing "contemporary artist" (or its plural) into the search window, as "list of contemporary artists" is less intuitive; these search terms should still redirect here. We need to be more specific about what counts as "showing in a major exhibition/museum". As far as I can determine, Dboeck is right to question the presence on this list of Damon Denys (no museum or exhibition attention as far as I can tell) and Guy Denning, who has shown mostly in venues such as the Torquay Museum--a natural history museum--and at the International Biennale of Contemporary Art in Florence, which is one of the less selective international shows (Canada alone sent 37 artists to the 4th Florence Biennale). But Hdboeck's proposed addition of Jack Vittriano doesn't seem to make the cut either, although Sam Dillemans would probably scrape by. Odd Nerdrum, whom he also mentions, has been on the list for months with no controversy. Banksy may be an unfortunate exclusion, but the existing criteria have generally served well. A "see also" section offering links to related articles such as graffiti art and Auction records for contemporary art would make it easy for readers to find notables who are missing from our list. Ewulp (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion

This is a discussion page, not a vote page. Are you going to send a vote letter to all the users who are interested in art. Lets discuss the subject with arguments pro and contra. Wikipedia asks for a consensus. That words comes from Latin and it means agreement. We have to create harmony between different opinions. In that case in fact I didn't arrase any aspects of the previous criteria. I just made a supplement to create a more accurate base to create a complete list of contempory artists suitable for an encyclopedia. I invite you to make proper comments on my writings to start a real discussion to create at the end a consensus.

I have to feeling that that some people want to control wikipedia. Its a sad evolution... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdboeck (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the voting is only to get an idea of what editors are thinking and who the issue needs to be discussed with. The only reason that I can think of that some editors don't want the change is that they don't want the article flooded with creators of "bad" or "inessential" art. But that's why your sentence works for me, that the artists listed here must be a source of great influence on future artists, and that otherwise the artists must be recognized and appreciated by mass media.

On the other hand, I see the other editors' point about somebody paying for media attention. But that's why the word "mass media" works for me, because the proposed sentence is not one or two papers or periodicals, it's a wide range of media, excluding all mirror media.

Therefore, I think the discussion to have is what kind of media will be acceptable, and how many forms, how frequently and if there is such a thing as an artist fading from importance.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the proposed revised criteria are workable. Better to either leave the status quo paragraph in place (and rename the article appropriately) or make notability the test, in which case no explanatory paragraph is necessary. The old criteria have the virtue of being fairly easy to police--an artist can be stricken from the list by an editor who finds no evidence that a given artist has shown in major venues. In the event of a dispute, a reference proving that said artist participated in a Venice Biennale or the like settles the matter. User:Hdboeck points out that the existing language excludes important artists such as Odd Nerdrum--in other words, it provides a decisive guideline, for better or worse. The new edit, on the other hand, invokes vague requirements for relevant numbers and significant mass media attention. How are we to determine that an artist is "considered as significant by mass media"? If an artist has made headlines (perhaps as a result of a stunt), will the quantity of media coverage be accepted as proof that the artist is considered as significant by mass media, or will it matter that every art critic interviewed for the stories dismisses the artist as a nonentity? Will 100,000+ ghits be sufficient proof that the internet considers an artist significant?

What does "influencing a relevant number of other artists" mean, and how are editors to determine if a sufficient number have been influenced? Do artists who teach have a commanding advantage here, or must the influenced artists be notable?

Below is a list of artists--some I like, some not--all of whom seem to me sufficiently notable to pass the test under the proposed revision, depending on how the vague parts are interpreted. It might be instructive if Hdboeck, as the author of the revised language, would indicate which, if any, of the following artists he or she would exclude, and explain the reasoning in each case.

Juan Cardenas (artist), Chen Liangjie, Daze (artist), Maureen Gallace, David Hosie, Ignacio Iturria, John Seward Johnson II, Thomas Kinkade, Ivan Klapez, Wiz Kudowor, Carol Lay, Riva Lehrer, John Lessore, Ma Liuming, Stu Mead, Celia Paul, George Shkhvatsabaia, Victoria Timofeeva, Robert Yarber, Jorge Zeno. Ewulp (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC) addendum: It turns out that Ignacio Iturria represented Uruguay in the 1995 Venice Biennale & would not be excluded even under the old standard. Ewulp (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

to Ewulp: I will gladly indicate which of these following artists I would put on to the list. I will do this in a separate section about these particular artists later on after I published my general opinion and solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdboeck (talk • contribs) 00:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A solution or a mixture of solutions

First of all I think that everybody agrees that there should by criteria for this list. Like Abie the Fish Peddler stated without restrictions there exists a risk of an extreme accumulation of names of artists who don’t make a significant contribution to the identity of contempory art. The list must therefor be relevant, it should be a difficult attempt to canonize our time (1970s-present) and in that case it can be a worthful succeeder of the list of modern artists (late 19th century-1970s).

The problem of having just one criterium:

Who are the authorities on the field of contemporary art. Who decides what is important. What’s in or out. In any case everybody has to admit there are more authorities then just some important institutions: we have art professors, journalists, curators, the artists themselves and last but not least important private collectors. The current criterium doesn’t regard or take into consideration these different kind of influences at all. It just is focusing on one and that is totally unacceptable. Some user stated that this existing indicator is easy to apply. First of all: criteria are not made to errase names quickly. I hope everybody does do some research before doing that. Secondly, it is not because the other influences are more difficult to apply that these supplementary criteria suddenly aren’t indicators for someone’s significance for contempory art. And this is eventually, what we want to express by a list, isn't?

Critics on the existing criterium:

It is not that the institutions and exhibitions that are mentioned in the existing citerium are preeminent that we have to institutionalize and to consolidate their authority at wikipedia. The organizors of this kind of exhibitions have to keep on doing efforts to keep the attention of the artworld. We can’t just give them a safe-conduct to choose what is hot, what ‘s in or out. We have to stay critical also towards their selections. Sometimes this selection were arbitrarily, or not clearly defined, or were led by personal taste and even commercial motives to pump up prices of work out of their own private collection (Jan Hoet bought in the nineties a lot of work from Luc Tuymans before inviting him to different important exhibitions he had organized). Some of these artists who are on the list even say they had a lot of luck to be selected one day by such exhibitions. Secondly: the expression of “contemporary art exhibitions of worldwide importance” can be vague too. Is the Astrup Fearnly Museum in Oslo or the MUKHA in Antwerp museums of significant importance for contempory art. What are the criteria to find out which are important museums or institutions. Every country will claim of course to have an institute of worldwide importance.

There are also problems with artists who are clearly appreciated inside the arworld, but aren't being allowed on the list because of the existing criteria. The nicest example why the existing indicator is insufficient is the art of Banksy. According to this indicator this anonymous British graffiti artist is excluded from the list, but it is beyond any doubt that his work is influencing clearly the identity of contempory art worldwide. Bansky is an anarchist who as an artist already challenged the authorities such as the Moma,the British museum and the tate by smuggling in his art. His graffiti art appears unexpected on walls in the UK and is sauld for sums from 30.000 up to 1.600.000 dollars (for a piece at an auction organized by Bono and Damien Hirst). His art is important for the identity of art today. Why should he be excluded when he is a frequently discussed subject in academic circles, media and appreciated by the worlds preeminent private collectors.

Another example is the art of Scottish painter Jack Vettriano. Whether you like his neo-romantical style or not his paintings are estimated from 100.000 dollars up to 1000.000 dollars and more. There is clearly a huge public who is interested in his work. And because his paintings are reproduced and distributed by the Portland Gallery and this prints are hanging in millions of households he must be recognized as being influencial for postmodern decorations and interiors of houses worldwide.

The French Enlightenments writers Diderot and d’Alembert who invented more or less the concept of an encyclopedia stated that an encyclopedia should bring together all the existing knowledge about a subject. The existing criterium is therefor unsufficiant to create a full and complete encyclopedical list of significant contempory artists. Like Abie the Fish Peddler stated earlier the opinion that this existing criterium is long been established doesn't prove that it meets Wikipedia's needs today.

With the existing criterium we can also make historical errors. When we would apply our existing criterium arround lets say 1863 in France, heavyweiths like Manet, Courbet, Whistler, Pissarro, Cézanne would not even be on it. Although they intensively were discussed in the media round that time there were not selected by any exhibition of worldwide importance. These authorities clearly made a huge error. You can only laugh at people who would made such a list at that time without these names who eventually change art history, wouldn't you. Lets do some efforts so we aren't laughed at in the near future.

The solution: an economical parameter:

This indicator focuses on the economical value of art. By the objective law of supply and demand one can clearly see how artists are known and even if there are promissing. It doesn't say anything ofcourse about the esthetical value, which is in fact important for the neutrality of an encyclopedia.

The condition of economic value can't be called vague and subjective. It is a clear and objective proof of appreciation coming from a larger public. High auction prices are a result of dozen kind of influences from being selected for important exhibitions in the past, the quality of the work itself, the recognition of the public, the attention given by modern media as internet, radio and television, and the acknowledge of being a significant artist who clearly is influencing other artists and the looks of contempory art today. How can you check auction prices and from wich amount of money can we speak of a significant artist?

Auction prices can easily be checked on sites as www.artnet.com/ or www.artprice.com/ and even on google etc or can be based on the comments of professionals auction sellers and buyers.

I am following already for years the market. For this parameter we use only recent auction prices (this prices are formed directly by the law of supply and demand) , not by gallery prices (which can be under or over estimated). You can talk about heavyweights from having sold their work on a permanent and frequent basis at a minimum of 10.000 dollars for smaller and original work (unique pieces). The advanges of using this parameter is that it can be easily used by users of wikipedia. It also like i already stated doesn't judge the work which is very important for an ecncyclopedia.

All the artist which are already on the list are approved by the application of this criterium. With this indicator we can extend our list with a lot of artist who formally aren't selected yet for important exhibition, but are nevertheless being appreciated within the artworld. This allows us to create a full and complete list of important contempory artist worthfull for an encyclopia. It would put also banksy and Vettriano on the list.

General solution:

The criteria for this list should be a mixture between differant indicitors where the most important one's are the one of the existant criterium (their work has been shown in contemporary art exhibitions of worldwide importance) or the indicator of economic value (their work is high valued in auction sales, this last criterium indicates the appreciation of a larger public). If one of those two criteria are clearly proven the artist should be recognized as an important artist who has his or her influence on the identity of contempory art today. Their can be some additional indicators like beeing dicussed in the mass media (newspapers, television and radio on a national and international level) and regarded beeing influencial for a relevant number of artists.

Nattive speakers of english can rewrite ofcourse this criteria in proper english. If still users aren't't convinced there should be a split between an unrestricted "list of contempory artists" and "a list of contempory artists who are selected by art exhibitions of worldwide importance".

I invite you all to make comments on my writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdboeck (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You raise some valid issues. The question of which museums are "major museums" is certainly a gray area. Your suggestion to make auction prices a criterion deserves consideration--my immediate reaction is that following the money is an unappealing system for determining the importance of a contemporary artist, but perhaps this is a useful tool. One problem with it is that an auction only establishes the amount somebody is willing to pay for something--it may imply recognition of artistic importance, but it may be about something else entirely. Curators, on the other hand, make it their profession to evaluate importance, and may be said to serve as reliable sources.

Your reference to the artists of 1863 actually demonstrates fairly well the value of the current parameters: Pissarro and Manet would be included, as both had been accepted in the very prestigious Paris Salon of 1859 (Manet won a medal). Courbet had shown in several Salons and won a medal in 1849. In 1863, auction records would not have helped the case for Whistler. Cézanne would not be on the list, rightly so; in 1863 he had barely started to paint and had attracted only a little (negative) attention--in 1882 he finally got the imprimatur of the Salon.

Mass media is an especially unreliable authority for our list if we intend to be selective. The term "mass media" is defined in various ways. Is a magazine that has a paid circulation of only 10,000 considered mass media? Such a publication meets the broad definition: it represents the use of technology to reach large numbers of people, and is made available to a vast, even international, audience. Does "mass media" refer only to media giants? Would it depend upon whether the small magazine is published by Time-Warner or by an independent consortium?

I think that reliance on mass media as an arbiter will lead editors to make decisions based on their own judgment rather than citing reliable sources, and this is against WP policy. One of the names on my list above, Ivan Klapez, may serve as an illustration. If Modern Painters counts as mass media, Klapez has a claim to be on our list: he was the subject of a 5-page article with interview and photographs in the Spring 1995 issue. The article called him "brilliant' and said that his status as "one of 'the great undiscovered'" seemed about to change. He is Croatian, and it seems likely that he has had some national media attention in his native country, although I'm only guessing about this. Suppose an editor wanted to include him on our list on the basis of Modern Painters and perhaps additional references from Croatia's national newspapers and magazines of record. There would be no unambiguous grounds for exclusion, yet he seems fairly obscure, and probably not a good fit for a selective list of internationally recognized names.

The value of having well-defined criteria is that we thereby avoid edit wars. You write above that it is not enough that "existing indicator is easy to apply. First of all: criteria are not made to errase names quickly. I hope everybody does do some research before doing that." We are not averse to research, but after making an investigation we need to be able to reach a decision. Your proposal to use combined records--from exhibitions, museums, auction prices, and the mass media--in order to identify the most important artists of our time begins to look like original research and synthesis of sources.

You write of curators that "We can’t just give them a safe-conduct to choose what is hot, what ‘s in or out. We have to stay critical also towards their selections. Sometimes this selection were arbitrarily, or not clearly defined, or were led by personal taste and even commercial motives". The decisions of curators and art professionals can be questionable, but the decisions of collectors can be equally questionable, and their tastes (or investment hunches) drive auction prices.

A thought--would it make sense to divide our list into two sections? The first section would be compiled using our current parameters (with some refinements). The second section would list artists not included in the first section but who meet some other well defined requirement. Ewulp (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! I'm intrigued by the "two sections" idea, and I'd like to hear more views on it. Nice work at compromising, Ewulp!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

About my reference to the artists of 1863: the reason that I have chosen the year 1863 is on purpos. In that year these artists were refused by the Salon de Paris but selected by the salon des refusés. This Salon was organized because the jury of the official salon was affected by a lot of intrigues. According to some critical journalists they were selecting artists to help them of having decent careers. These accusations proof that authorities doesn't always evaluate importance with a neutral and academic attitude. So selections too just may imply recognition of artistic importance, but may also be about something else. It is acctually the same problem we face here. It is a lot about personal tast and connections. Everybody who serioursly is envolved in the artworld will admit this. When we apply the existing parameter, we only should select teherefor artist who are on frequently base are being selected.

Itshouldn't be discussed here , but because you made historical statements it is advisable to make some comments about this subject:

Like you have presented it, the artists that are mentioned were appreciated artists in '60 of the 19th century. In fact the truth was a whole other picture. With the exception of Courbet which is a realist making him more acceptable, these French heavywaits would never be on our list in the beginnening of the '60, no way.

You are talking about the Paris Salon: Manet wasn't selected for the Paris Salon of 1859, and certainly did not won a medal (Manet won the légion d'honneurs in 1881, before he died, which is not given by an art institute but by the French state). In fact his painting the "absinthe drinker" was refused for the Salon of 1859 because it was too vague). (catalogue of the 1859 exhibition)

http://books.google.be/books?id=VvpXAAAAIAAJ&dq=paris+salon+1859&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=v0TJWCWVMb&sig=gbD8RsjplmG_yUfMpeIwsfGvZuM&hl=nl&ei=xzLcSoLmL8i14QbEkYTWCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=manet&f=false

Manet and Pissarro's works at this time were occasionally, though by no means consistently, accepted at the annual Salons. Even it was prestigious, these salons were selecting hundreds of mainly french artists and thousands of paintings. Artists were not presented like nowadays with their own prestigious exhibition. This takes down the importance of these salons. You have to see more at the medals they won and the number of paintings which were allowed to hang at the official Salon (which was poorly for the impressionists). My point was that there was existing in that time a huge differance (almost a conflict) in opinion between the official Salon and a lot of modern painters. The jury of the Paris Salon was always critizing Manet's work and reguraly refusing (mostly) his work. Cézanne was too jung as an artist in 1863 but his work was later on also rejected. Poets and writers often critized the Salon jury like Baudelaire and Mallarmé, who protested in an article the Salon’s rejection of Manet’s paintings. Whistlers "White Girl", rejected for inclusion in the Paris Salon in 1863, was allowed at the Salon des refuses, but was critized by respected art critics ( example: John Ruskin - a pot of paint in the publics face).

So, authorities on the fields of arts and curators aren't holy. High auction price as a parameter wouldn't have helped our French artists, but we are trying to find a bureaucratic criterium for including. We have to find the less worst system. We don't have to make an exclusive list, this isn't what an ancyclopedia is about. We have to create a full and complete list of artists who have e relevant influence on the identity of contempory art today. The parameter of economic value can help us to provide this and extend our list with serious artists. Like I have stated in a previous section, high auction prices are a result of dozen kind of influences from being selected for important exhibitions in the past, the quality of the work itself, the recognition of the public, the attention given by modern media as internet, radio and television, and the acknowledge of being a significant artist who clearly is influencing other artists and the looks of contempory art today.

Ewulp gave me a list of names. When I apply the parameter of economic value, we could put on our list:

Ignacio Iturria, between 10.000 dollar (smaller) up to 17000 for larger work, and some work with prices in the rage of 200.000 and 250.000

Chen Liangjie: between 50.000 to 60.000

Juan Cardenas: 10.000 dollar for smaller work up to 38.000 for larger work.

Maureen Gallace: from 9.000 up to 25-30.000

Ma Liuming: from 8.000 smaller work up to 20-40.000 (for larger work)

Jorge Zeno: 15.000-20.000 average size up to 55.000

John Seward Johnson II 35000 - 55.000 (average size)

Names who almost were allowed, but didn"t make it:

Robert Yarber (4000 to 15000 for larger work)

Celia Paul 6000 to 10000 for larger work)

Christopher Ellis Daze (9000 for larger work)

Names who certainly are excluded:

David Hosie (1500 (small) to 4000 (larger work)

Ivan Klapez (600 to 1000)

Wiz Kudowor (+/- 4000)

Riva Lehrer, 1000 to 2000

John Lessore, 100 to 800

Stu Mead: no auction interest

George Shkhvatsabaia, no auction interest

Victoria Timofeeva: no auction interest

Problems with the term "contempory artist":

Thomas Kinkade: Kinkade's original work is valued from 20.000 to 30.000 dollars. But Kinkade's work is used as a decorative element for a particular style in household interiors. We can extend ofcourse our list by including decoration designers, but then we ment probably originaly with our definition of contempory artist something different.

Carol Lay: more known as an author of a comic strip. She should be on another list.

I hope I convinced some users. The existing parameter is too vague. Which are institutions of world wide importance? An economic parameter is more accurate. It is easy to reach a decision about who is in and out. We should make a combination.

"Artists in this list have gained recognition or proven their importance because their work has been shown in contemporary art exhibitions of worldwide importance or is high valued at auction sales (at a minimum of 10.000 dollars)"

In my opinion this is an accurate, correct and the less worst way to create a full and complete encyclopedic list of significant contempory artists.

Hdboeck (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

After reading Hdboeck's fine argument, I am thinking that it would be more appropriate to open this list up more broadly, and to make a separate list for "participants in the Biennales", with clear links between them. But I think the monetary thing is only one criterion that should be used in this article, I think we need also to include the criterion of inspiration and influence on other artists, which could easily be cited with external articles. Let's give our artists a wealth of means to present their art. After all, "contemporary artist" is not a copyrighted term.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

First a minor correction: it was the 1861 Salon in which Manet won a medal (2nd class) for The Spanish Singer, not the 1859 salon as I wrote. My point about 1863 was that if a writer had compiled a list in that year of contemporary artists who had exhibited in major exhibitions, Courbet, Manet, and Pissarro would have grounds to make the list; perhaps Whistler too, but not Cézanne. The Salon was the most important annual art exhibition in Europe; of course the artworld has changed since 1863 but it was not I that suggested the comparison. If the list's criteria had instead been Hdboeck's formula of "auction prices+is considered significant by the press+has major influence on other notable artists+in major exhibitions", would it have changed anything? The listmaker would have needed a discerning eye to predict which of the artists of the Salon des Refusés would be remembered 100 years later. The popular press, like the Salon juries, derided a lot of good art.

The sorted list submitted by Hdboeck bears some similarities to the list that would result from using the existing criteria. I'm not convinced that the proposed change makes for a better or more accurate list. The greatest virtue of the proposed system is that it seems to make editing this list as simple as reading a scale: one need only determine if an artist's numbers are above or below a given figure. But there are several problems: wouldn't performance artists, makers of site-specific works, photographers, video artists, and filmmakers be at a disadvantage? They do not necessarily produce works that somebody will bid $10,000 for. In the case of Thomas Kinkade, certain auctions and collectors are judged not to count, according to a standard no less vague than our existing parameters having to do with "major" exhibitions or museums, thus multiplying the points of ambiguity when we should be trying to eliminate them. The exclusion of Carol Lay because she is known as a cartoonist seems arbitrary; if prices realized at art auctions are our standard, some cartoonists will likely be included, as well as fantasy illustrators such as Frank Frazetta, won't they? If a bid-rigging scandal is exposed at an auction house, will our list have to be purged of artists whose works may have been involved? Ewulp (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Personaly I believe that the image that is given about the '60 of the 19th century is actually a bit naief. Like I have shown in a previous section impressionistic art wasn't that respected in academic circles. The Spanish singer is a quite traditional painting which made it acceptable for the jury. Modern paintings on the other hand were more refused then accepted at these annual Salons which by the way were more open for French artists then for foreigners. In a nationalistic and conservative climate like the '60 Manet, Whistler and Pissaro weren't considered big artists in France (this counted also and even more for the next generation: Van Gogh, Gauguin, Lautrec)

Like i have said myself the criterium wouldn't have helped them, but the criteria is a way to extend our list. The list like it is now today is an exclusive list which consolidates the power of traditional authorities in a modernistic and a postmodern climat. So, for example Banksy is out. This has nothing to do with an encyclopedia (which has to give AS MUCH AS RELEVANT information about the contempory art environment ).

About scandals: scandals can also appear at the selections of artists for some biennale. The existing critrerium is also vague and discussable. Which are the institutions of world wide importance exactly? Is the S.M.A.K. in Gent (Belgium) an institution of world wide importance? The Museum Artage in Vladivostok? (don't judge to fast if you don't know which artist already shown their work over there)

Why the parameter provides us a more accurate list?

Simply because of the fact that i suggested a combination. I never wanted to errase the existing criterium. I want to make a list of conditions, want to make it more pluralistic if you want. Artists who are respected by authorities but haven't the change on the market to proove themself like performance artists, makers of site-specific works, photographers, video artists, and filmmakers are allowed because of the existing condition. And artist who ware respected but hadn't the chance yet to have the fortune of been selected by an "institute of world wide importance", can be on the list because of their work is high valued at auction sales. Please admit that sometimes one had to have a lot of luck to be selected for the first time by important institutions (i like to refer to what heavywaits like Francis Bacon, Luc Tuymans and Peter Doig said about this subject).

Who can be against a pluralistic vision?

Hdboeck (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

...or what Rauschenberg had to say about auctions? The sale price criterion is an interesting idea, but I don't think it's going to stick. It seems to be dependent on original research and doesn't reflect the practice of other encyclopedias. If you know of a published list of contemporary artists assembled from auction sales please let me know. I've looked but haven't found any.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of objective sources to find out what's the value of art objects:

www.christies.com/ (free)

www.sothebys.com (free)

www.artnet.com

www.findartinfo.com (free) (all price info of all the auction houses in the world are gathered on this site)

Typ the name of artists and you will find lists of prices.

estimating a price has not that much to do with research. It is the result of the market.

To find out which are important institutes, that looks to me more like research.

Hdboeck (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was a list of artists compiled using sale prices. But it's all right I've found the Artprice annual market trends report: [3] and I'm revising my opinion. I think something can be added to the effect that an artist is included in the list if they appear in the Artprice annual market trends report, the Art Review Power 100 [4] and other named lists of a similar nature. If enough authorative source lists can be found it may be eventually possible to dispense with the other criteria, in the manner of the List of major opera composers. Banksy? Ranked 87 in the Artprice top 500.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Artfacts.net [5] is another possible source. This solution seems to meet our needs--it would be easy to explain clearly, and should provide a suitable list without relying on other criteria. I'd like to hear what others think. Ewulp (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning prices

The criteria here should be a combination of various factors. Exhibition history, bibliography, media, reviews, and prices or a combination of those. I don't trust the auction houses, or price lists in general as a sole criteria because prices are often fixed, they can indicate and do indicate too often the vagaries of fashion and the fickleness of commerce having little to do with the quality or the relevance of works of art. As one criteria of many however I agree that these lists can and should be consulted. There is often a disparity between retail prices - what is being asked by galleries and auction results, and are ultimately unreliable as indicators for most artists, major figures being the obvious exceptions. I highly recommend the essay Paul Gauguin-Letters to Ambroise Vollard and Andre Fontainas in the book John Rewald: Studies In Post-Impressionism. Of particular interest here is a series of letters between Gauguin and Vollard concerning prices. In a letter from Gauguin to Vollard from Tahiti dated January 1900, Gauguin mentions his acquisition of a Renoir at auction for 30 francs and seeing Monet's for sale at 20 francs each in (1875) when Gauguin was a young collector. On the other hand if we only used the Salon exhibition as record (museum shows) we also face too severe discrimination as has been pointed out at length. A combination of criteria makes sense...Modernist (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the auction prices being used in a way to include artists that don't meet the other criteria, not to exclude artists who do meet other criteria.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, although sometimes common sense helps as well...Modernist (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

a practical solution

After an extensive and far-reaching discussion where we clearly could see that the existing criterium doesn’t meet Wikipedia's needs today, there are clearly grounds to change the parameters above our list. Can anyone rewrite the criterium in proper English so we can include an economical parameter and be more precisely about “exhibitions of worldwide importance”.

Hdboeck (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Great work, Abie. I Like the reference in the parameter to our discussion Hdboeck (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure :-) It's teamwork.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1