Talk:Tonalism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

New York (state)

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

No contemporary artists or information?

Contemporary tonalist painters should be included in this article. There are such painters who are famous, good, and worthy of mention here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msft watch (talk • contribs) 05:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are fine contemporary painters indeed. But the article refers to a movement and its associated artists from a particular era. As in the article on Impressionism, a list of artists is best limited to those who were most important to the movement during it origins and most influential period, and does not include subsequent practitioners. One of the benefits of adhering to this is that it eliminates the possibilities for promotion. JNW (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a good approach would be to add a new section for "Later Tonalist Painters" or "Other More Recent Tonalist Painters" (ditto for Plein Air painters). I don't believe an artistic style ends with an era. There are rock music acts from the 60s, and rock music acts from this year. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msft watch (talk • contribs) 05:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really have to knock off for the day, but I'll try a brief reply now: I agree re: the permanence of good painting, regardless of style, but not for the Tonalism article--its reach as a movement really is circumscribed by the dates of the introduction to the article. A think a 'later' section would look tacked on, and raise questions of promotional motives. There are many good and successful plein air painters today, but I think one would be compelled to stick with the most famous and successful ones, like Rackstraw Downes or Antonio Lopez Garcia-- they don't conform to the American template of rapid outdoor painting, but they are acknowledged modern masters who paint outside from life. That's what I mean by notability, artists with museum shows and major monographs. Finally, though I know something about this, mine ain't the final word, so it might be interesting to have a few other art contributors weigh in. Probably best for us to talk on the Tonalism discussion page. Thanks for dropping a line. JNW (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is, incidentally, a fine show right now at the Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, Mass, which focuses on this theme [1], and features Whistler, Chase, Inness, Dewing, and others. JNW (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]