Template talk:Francis Picabia

Primary contributor

Francis Picabia was a primary contributor to Cubism, Abstract art, Anti-art, Dada, New York Dada, Galeries Dalmau, 291 (magazine), Littérature (magazine). That is why these links figure in the list of related items. He exhibited at the first Cubist exhibition. He is considered one of (if not the) first abstractionist(s). His 'anti-art' was produced first in 1915, along with that of Marcel Duchamp. He is considered by art historians as one of (if not the) first Dada artist(s). His first one man show was at Galeries Dalmau, and he contributed extensively to 291 (both the gallery and magazine). Picabia was given carte blanche for the illustrations for each issue of Littérature. Coldcreation (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• All of your additions are tangential at best. Look at Galeries Dalmau. There is no intrinsic link between the gallery and the artist, which is what is needed for a good navbox. Consider navboxes for {{Jean Metzinger}}, {{Albert Gleizes}}, {{Juan Gris}}, {{Marcel Duchamp}}, {{Salvador Dalí}} (some of which are also problematic), all of whom have a similar connection to the gallery, but you don't start including a gallery (any gallery) in the navboxes of everyone who has exhibited there. If the artist founded the gallery, then fine, but that is not the case here. Another test is that it would be completely WP:UNDUE to transclude this navbox on any of those articles. If that is the case, then it is inappropriate to include the article in the navbox. Take 291 (magazine) for example. Transclusion of this navbox would give WP:UNDUE weight to his contributions over the four actual creators. And how can abstract art be remotely appropriate for inclusion, when it was around for years before he was? Iggy Pop was a major proponent of punk rock, but it would be wholly inappropriate to include that as a link on his navbox. The same applies here. You may want to reconsider your understanding of what a WP:NAVBOX is for. --woodensuperman 10:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Your example and interpretation of abstract art is erroneous. Abstract art began following Fauvism and Cubism. The only thing remotely similar in the 19th century was the work of J M W Turner (which actually represented things, and so is not abstract in the modern sense of the term: nonobjective art), other abstractions were of a decorative nature (not fine art). The first abstractionists were Francis Picabia, Wassily Kandinsky, František Kupka, Robert Delaunay, Léopold Survage, Piet Mondrian (not necessarily in that order, but all circa 1912). I'll be back shortly to discuss the rest of your post. Coldcreation (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, you do not start including general topics like this in navboxes for individuals, unless the connection is so strong the topic is completely inseparable from the individual. Never the case when so many other individuals are also involved. --woodensuperman 10:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

If indeed Picabia's Caoutchouc is correctly dated circa 1909, that would make this painting the first abstract work of art, before Kandinsky and others. For this Picabia has been considered by art historians as the first artist to produce abstract art. The connection is so strong with this topic, it is completely inseparable from the individual. Coldcreation (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)