User talk:Sparkit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archives
April 12, 2005 – January 4, 2006 January 2006 – March 2007 April 2007 – May 2008

Capitalization art movements

Hi Sparkit,

I noticed your edit summary for Jean Arp yesterday. Do you know of any sources for guidance on the capitalization of art movements. I kind of thought they were all capitalized, but I hadn't thought about it too much. -- Solipsist 10:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Solipsist!

I didn't find the wikipedia or Chicago Manual of Style guidance on art movment capitalization adequate, so I googled the topic. http://www.zeal.com/guidelines/a_z_style_guide/a_to_h/a.jhtml said, like most do, that "most" art movement names are NOT capitalized, and added the suggestion to use a dictionary to determine capitalization. Doh! So, I went to bartleby.com and looked them up. I started a list at User:sparkit/capitalization. Please add to it if you like.

Many art magazines, books and websites capitalize art movements, so I think the issue is in flux.

--sparkit 13:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It looks like there isn't much rhyme nor reason to it. Now that a do a couple of checks, my Concise Oxford Dictionary 6th Ed, (1977) agrees with for example Dada, fauvism and cubism. The 10th Ed, (1999) concurs, but capitalizes Fauve for individuals in the fauvism movement. On the other hand the Oxford Dictionary of Art (1988) capitalizes both Fauvism and Cubism and quite a few more besides. Go figure...

The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (1981) which is usually pretty good on matters of style, has Dada, Les Fauves and 'fauvism (not cap.)' and fails to mention cubism. But its list of things to capitalize (largely based on Hart's Rules) includes 'Institutions and movements' giving the examples; Christianity, Islam, Maxism, the Crown, the State. It doesn't mention art movements explicity though.

As you say, you more often see art movements capitalized in books and magazines on art. I guess it is one to take to WikiProject Visual arts. Its doesn't look like a very active WikiProject, so I might have to join it. -- Solipsist 15:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I checked this out further, though the American Heritage Dictionary shows most art movements as lower case, the Cambridge' Dictionary shows them some as upper case. I'm inclined to go with upper case for two reasons. One, wikipedians most often use upper case, and, two, that would mean less changing of articles. I found discussion about the topic on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (capitalization) page. I'll pick up the discussion again in the next few days. --sparkit (talk) 01:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

And now another dictionary — Oxford, which aligns with American Heritage. Results are at [[1]] --sparkit (talk) 03:43, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

That looks good. It would probably be useful to move this page (or a finished definative version) to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts

I filled out a column for the Oxford Dictionary of Art and added two rows. One for Neoclassicism, because that was the only Neo-xxx that wasn't hyphenated. And Vorticism because it began with a V (stopping at S seemed a bit early) but also because I added a fair bit to that article ;-) -- Solipsist 08:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. I'll add the chart to the Art project. (I see you've joined the art project. Yipee!) --sparkit (talk) 13:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Georges Rouault

• Thanks a lot for the cleanup tag. I didn't even finish my edits. You could have waited at least 15 min. You may look again now. Ben talk contr 02:17, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ack! I misread your message on the talk page to mean that you were done. Many, many thanks for adding all that info to the Rouault page! --sparkit 03:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I just could leave it in that condition. I am happy you like it, I thought the cleanup tag would be a little harsh now, so I removed it, but it still needs a lot of editing for sure. Cheers, Ben talk contr 03:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Van Gogh - Portrait of Pere Tanguy 1887-8.JPG

Hi, Sparkit! I see you uploaded the commons picture to wikipedia. What's the idea about that? Isn't it enough to have it in commons? Ben talk contr 13:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ben! I intended only to add the category tag "Images of art", and did not upload the file, though that's what shows on the image's history. Unfortunately I don't remember if I was in wikipedia or wikicommons at the time. If I was in wikicommons, then adding a tag to the image, copied it to wikipedia, which is a bug, IMO. I'd love to see less duplication between wikicommons and wikipedia, particular with art files. Could you point me to any resources regarding moving files from one to the other? Does one have to re-upload them to wikicommons or is there some other procedure? Thanks! --sparkit (talk) 14:32, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I see the same apparent copying from wikicommons to wikipedia happened with other images to which I added category. Blech! --sparkit (talk) 14:51, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sparkit! I tried to add a category to one picture, too, and the same thing happened. I think, I understand it now: The picture still is at commons, but a description file was generated at wikipedia (that's what NEW means probably). Thanks, btw, for putting the tag to the pic! Then, to my information, there is no easy tool for interwiki-moving, i.e. between commons and en.wikipedia. There is, of course, the possibility for uploading many files by putting them together in a zip file and sending them to some people, w:Commons:File upload service. I will forward your question to one of the admins in commons and tell you then what I found out, I have some questions anyway. Ben talk contr 00:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

It occured to me this afternoon that the behaviour might be intentional. So that the various languages of wikipedia can create their own informational pages about the images. --sparkit (talk) 00:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking the commons admins about the issue! --sparkit (talk) 00:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I'll tell you when I got an answer. Ben talk contr 01:15, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again! I got an answer:

1. I prefer to move contents manually because Commons have stricter rules regarding copyrights and description then average Wikipedia (for example Russian). But I read that Wikipedia bot kit include scripts for moving images.

I found The Amebot at Wikipedia:Bots. You should be able to use it somehow (I don't know how). There's more about bots here. Ben talk contr 01:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, Ben! Yeah, the copyright stuff makes me go cross-eyed. I might look into the bot. Someday I plan to learn to compile stuff like Python on my computer, but I'm more interested in PHP. --sparkit (talk) 02:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Anome is responsible for The Amebot. And just your question was just asked on the talk page, the 20th, and not answered yet. Ben talk contr 02:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Japonism and Les Nabis

Thanks for your fixes! Ben talk contr 07:47, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Ben! Thanks for writing/contributing so much to those articles! --sparkit (talk) 13:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Crazy Horse

Thanks for the compliment on the rewrite and for doing the copy edit. I should have taken more time to review my changes, but I'd been looking at it so long that when I read it I kept scanning over the mistakes. Gorrister 15:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Gorrister! I miss a lot of things when I read my own writing, too. --sparkit (talk) 18:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Duchamp

Hey, cool, you are writing about Duchamp. I just went to the Louvre Exhibition of the Yokohama Art Museum, which was all about Duchamp. I found that thing about "art factor" very cool. They had an exhibit, which was the picture of a text excerpt together with the sound of Duchamp reading it. You can tell me, when to check it, if you want. Ben please vote! 09:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yep. It might take me awhile. Though I know a lot about Duchamp, references weren't handy, so I'm reading Duchamp: A Biography by Calvin Tomkins. I'll let you know when it approaches "completion.

Wow! I just read a bit about the Duchamp exhibit at the Yokohama Art Museum website. It sounds wonderful! I'm jealous. Tell me more about "art factor." I'm not sure what that means. --sparkit (talk) 18:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Most of the documentation was in Japanese, so I couldn't read it, but I enjoyed the exhibition a lot. It was very good.

I am surprised there wasn't more on the internet for "art factor"! I'll try to remember as best as I can. It seems to have come from his book from 1956. The main idea of the "art factor" was as follows: there can be no general consensus of what art is. Therefore it is not important to decide what is art and what is not art, but to how much of the ideas of an artist are transmitted/can be perceived by the observer and how they stimulate the observer. Because reception is productive and active, the observer is part of the artistic process and thereby part of the art. Reception differs individually, therefore art depends on the artist and the observer. The quality of "a piece of art" (if you may call it so) depends on the factor artist.ideas:observer.perception, what he called the art factor. I hope that was more or less correct, I found the citation there very fascinating, though I can't find it on the internet. Ben please vote! 05:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Thanks! I'm familar with the idea, but I'd not heard a name given to it. --sparkit (talk) 04:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Frans Hals

Nice rework! Hals is one of my role models. When I grow old I hope to retire in an asylum in Haarlem Netherlands ... however there was one thing mentioned in his biographical sketch:

"His widow later died obscurely in a hospital after seeking outdoor relief from the guardians of the poor."

... a wonderful turn of phrase, and I sense this may have been made with a delicious sense of irony ... only I don't quite know what it means. I tried pinpointing its introduction via the history page. Was she mugged .. or just looking for a social worker .. or was the social worker looking for her?

Anyway, thanks again. Vonkje 14:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Vonkje!

I puzzled over that sentence for a long time when editing the article, and the only similar reference I found on the web was the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (http://88.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HALS_FRANS.htm) from which most of the article is lifted. (... we find his widow seeking outdoor relief from the guardians of the poor, and dying obscurely in a hospital.) Which doesn't answer the many questions about her death.

I've posed the question on the article's talk page. --sparkit (talk) 16:35, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the Arts

Hi Sparkit,

Thanks for the work you are doing on arts articles. I'm noticing you popping up all over my watchlist — fixing cats, tidying up wiki-links and expanding text. Keep up the good work. -- Solipsist 19:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's my pleasure! Now I shall go paint. --sparkit (talk) 21:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Duchamp, brides and whatnot

Hi Sparkit,

Thanks for the kind words. I'm pretty much *the* newbie here. (I've used wiki for years, but not until an item got posted on Dukes www.douglasadams.se/forum did i realise that we (the internet community) actually try to contribute.

Def a big Duchamp fan, also mainly Korean and art of India (as well as Native/Primitive art). Interesting to find that my odd interests (eg, Sonia Terk-Delaunay ?sp?) find a need out here. I had read (some of, well do more so) of the guide lines, esp the bit about tryng to make wiki more authoritative. (what-ever the Zarq that means -- although it *is* a growing prob, since a lot of times you get blogs and fan fic when you're looking for an EXACT quote or such).

Well, will try not to be too verbose (something that i'm well known for on the DNA forum (log name: Drongo the Magnificent). Again, glad to help out -- might as well put all of those hours studying art history to *some* use, right? ;)

Also: Concerning the Bride Stripped bare, this is almost always refered to as "The Large Glass" (even though it's popularly known as "The Bride Stripped Bare", and the fuller title. I guess the only way to fix this would be have an entry in the SEARCH index that would link you to the "Bride Stripped bare". The similar proglem occurs with the Mona Lisa with the moustache, since it's refered to as the LHOOQ as well. And of course "the fountain". I've actually seen art teachers refer to it by the title "The Urinal". Hmm, strange guy that Marcel.

My main point here (amongst this persiflage and rambling) is that someone who has *about* the right idea as to what a thing is called (eg, "cubie", "the dead christ", etc) should be at least guided to a page on the SEARCH thingie. hmm, i guess you'll say then: Hey Drongo, why don't YOU write that stuff? To which i would reply (while shufflin' my feet and looking down woe-fully) "uh, i don't know how to yet". -- Richard. Richard T 9:02, Jun 23, 2005 (CaDST)

Hey, Richard!

I've re-thought The Large Glass thing and rearranged the pages (made The Bride Stripped Bare... into a redirect page.) Duchamp's title is an integral part of the piece, so we must cover that. We could make a The Urinal redirect page, too. (I'm long ago out of college, so I don't know what the profs are up to these days. Same old no-good, I imagine. ;) )

One thing that helped me alot when I got started writing here at Wikipedia, was making myself a sandbox page (username/sandbox), where I can play with tags and write drafts.

--sparkit (talk) 16:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Sparkit!

I'm back briefly. Obv that i'm the ult newbee (but I will try hard; promise). I'm not sure how to respond, so i'm editing this page - v. odd (but delight-fully *open*) system ! Is there like a forum or such? If you can point me to the right page, I'll spend some time. (Been v. busy trying to get into the Masters Program out at UTD -- finally got in, now "all" i have to do is scrape up the cash. Anyway, all the v. best -- your friend in e-space, Richard (Just call me Frank). btw: i'm way like-ing this system (i've been writing sort of an off-the-cuff "PDE" (public domain encyclopedia -- you know us hippies: Power to the People!) -- "Frank".

Hi Richard Frank!

Congratulations on getting into the master's program!

I think most people respond with posts on both users' talk pages.

Q&A about wikipedia mostly takes place on the Wikipedia:Village pump pages. --sparkit (talk) July 4, 2005 14:14 (UTC)

printing: why ?

(delete when read) In the "printing" article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Printing&diff=0&oldid=15357797 it seems that you made a tiny change that doesn't actually change the normal view of the article. Why ? --DavidCary 20:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dave! The asterisk after the pipe in a category alphabetizes the article's name to the top of the list of articles on the category page. So, now on at Category:Printing, the article "Printing" is at the beginning of the article list. --sparkit (talk) 22:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Nice. What is the appropriate talk page to discuss this "asterisk technique" ? Some category pages manually mention the main page above the list. Should I convert such "manual" pages ( Category:Electronics, Category:Mathematics, etc. ) to "asterisk" pages ? I see Category:Embedded systems is trying to go both ways. And I still don't understand -- what does it mean when several items are alphabetized under asterisk ? (such as Category:Calculators). --DavidCary 15:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization#Category_sorting discusses the technique.

(Tip: I've found that in order for a category alphabetization change to take effect, that first, on the article page, delete the category tag (i.e.: [[Category:Example]]), save the page. Then re-add the tag with the desired alphabetization characters (i.e.: [[Category:Example|*Example]]), and save the page again. It's a bug, I think. Also, sometimes it takes a few minutes for these changes to show up on the category page.)

Whether Electronics and Mathematics articles should be changed... I think it makes it easier to locate the main article about the topic.

Regarding Category:Calculators, often contributors want more than one article pushed to the top of a category alphabetization. However, in this example Reverse Polish Notation, to me, seems misplaced.

The link at the top of a category page is put in place by adding the tag, {{catmore}} to the category page, or by typing a paragraph like is done at Category:Embedded systems. Personally I like using both the asterisk and catmore techniques.

--sparkit (talk) 16:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pottery

So..............you're excluding us from the arts. Somehow, I didn't think the Wiki was so narrow minded. Please reconsider. We would like to be considered an art form here. If you take a look at the Pottery talk page, you will note that our small clay community is discussing a clay/ceramics tree for current and future articles. Many of them will be very strongly arts related. Comments welcome. WBardwin 05:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh not at all! My intent was to simplify categories. Category:Pottery is definitely in the art category, and the Pottery article is in the Pottery category.

The categorization tree for clay looks wonderful! Ceramic art and Pottery would work in Category:Art mediums. The schematic gives me an idea as to explaintion here...

The intent was rather than everything in the Visual arts category, to have a mediums category.

Visual arts
  ---Art mediums
    ---(everything before 'P')
    ---Painting
    ---Pottery
    ---(etc.)

--sparkit (talk) 06:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It is so discouraging to have people consider clay just a handicraft. Is your group dealing with art history as well? It's a very important aspect of clay/ceramics that is weak in Wiki. I've been trying to deal with it a little, starting with some pottery/archaeology in the American Southwest. If you have ideas on our proposed subject tree, please chime in. Comments welcome. WBardwin 06:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fountain

It could make sense to create a separate article dedicated to urinal art, e.g. Fountain (Duchamp), for the introduction. Ben ^T/_C

Yes. I think the time has come. --sparkit (talk) 05:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, that's a neat piece.

BTW, thanks for all your tireless corrections in my contributions!

Ben ^T/_C 03:18, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! And, you're most welcome. --sparkit (talk) June 30, 2005 14:55 (UTC)

Émile Gallé

Hi,

you added a cleanup tag to Émile Gallé: What in your opinion is non conformant? I would like to know if you are referring to the biographical edits I added in the last paragraph. They in fact do not refer directly to his artistic achievements, but if anything is known about an Artists' views on contemporary social affairs I think that they are an essential part of his/her biography. In this case the artist took active part in these affairs, with the Dreyfuss affair being an important part of French social history--Joelemaltais 28 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)

At the time I added the cleanup tag, there were several typos which are now corrected. I'll remove the tag. The non-art info is interesting (thanks for adding it!), and belongs in the article, IMO. --sparkit (talk) June 28, 2005 14:02 (UTC)

Interactive art

Hi Sparkit,

Can you take a look at the recent edits on Interactive art and to a lesser extent Kinetic art. It looks to me like a couple of anons are engaging in self-promotion and many of these changes relate to artist who aren't particularly notable. I've reverted a number of times before, but I would prefer a view from a different editor. -- Solipsist 4 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)

Hey Solipsist!

Sure, I'll do that.

First, Interactive art, it seems to me that the external links to individual artists is inappropriate -- that their notablilty is more appropriately established by an article about them. At least that's the gist I get from reading similar edits. But, I want your opinion on that. Maybe that info could go to the talk page until such time as someone writes articles about them?

Kinetic art needs expanding, eh? I also don't think of motion implied in painting as kinetic art, but I'll need to research that.

--sparkit (talk) July 4, 2005 14:41 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the recently linked artists on Interactive art page aren't sufficiently notable to merit an article of their own - I've done some searches on each of them and all I can find is their own homepage and at most one other self-authored page. As such I have just been deleting the additions and links as self-promotion (as per Wikipedia:External links). However they have been fairly persistent in re-inserting the links via a couple of different IP addresses - as a general rule after I've reverted an edit two or three times, I look for another editor to offer an opinion which would help to show the anon that it is not just a personal vendetta.

Sorry, Kinetic art was a red herring. I actually meant to point to Kinetic sculpture which had attracted some edits from the same anons, but that is looking alright at the moment. Kinetic art was split off from Kinetic sculpture after some discussion on a confusing #Redirect. And as it happens, I just found an old make-and-do book on the subject in my loft - Tim Armstrong, Make moving patterns [2]. They are mostly based on moire pattern type of effects - sometimes with a grid of lines painted on a transparency suspended just above the main canvas. A few of the examples may also be exploiting some of the steroscopic effects seen in Magic Eye books to produce the impression of a moving pattern in the eye.

Many years ago I also saw an exhibition at the Tate, where several of the artists used deeply corrugated canvases so that the perceived image changed as you walked past the painting. I wouldn't be able to remember any of the artist's names though. -- Solipsist 4 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)

I made changes to the Interactive art site to clearly distinguish between internal and external linkage. Most of the artists have either slick professional looking sites, list several exhibitions or list installation sites. Though the most recent addition's website looks a bit rough, he does list several exhibitions, whether they're notable or not, I don't know. One of project links is to thesis. I support your evaluation of the revertions (made-up word ;) ).

Thanks for the explaination! I now understand what is meant by kinetic painting. --sparkit (talk) July 5, 2005 00:46 (UTC)

RFC Classicjupiter2

[3] RFC against Classicjupiter2. He has been engaging in personal attacks and bad faith since he was an IP address, and in revert wars with other POV pushers in Surrealism for over a year. Stirling Newberry 16:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism

Strong support for your work on Surrealism, thank you for engaging in much needed clean up and improvements. Perhaps it will even be possible to fix the surrealism and film section some day. Stirling Newberry 21:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! -->>sparkit|TALK<< 22:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the day

Hi Sparkit,

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 24, 2005 to check over the caption. Normally I wouldn't ask, but since this will be up at the weekend, there is a good chance that it will be featured on the Main Page and I don't want to mess up too much.

Its also a bit of a shame that there is no content at 1898 in art, otherwise I could improve the date link. -- Solipsist 18:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ask anytime!

I suggest:

Art Nouveau ("new art" in French) is a style that peaked in popularity at the beginning of the 20th century in Europe and the United States. Unlike some most art movements, Art Nouveau bridges the divide between fine art and applied art (illustration, decorative arts, crafts and architecture). Dancel (1898) by Alfons Mucha with strong, flowing, organic lines is typical of the style.

>>sparkit|TALK<< 20:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Fooian?

Hi there! For some reason the example above is listing both of your talk pages in Category:Artists by nationality and Category:American people by occupation. Not the other art categories in the example, though. Weird, eh? I didn't check the psych categories. >>sparkit|TALK<< 06:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Aloha! Thanks for pointing this out to me. While I don't mind being listed with artists (I am one), I certainly don't want to be listed with the psyches!!! :) I will remove these from my talk page and let Snowspinner know. --AI 06:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Those folks are crazy. >>sparkit|TALK<< 20:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for taking on Peredvizhniki. This important article desperately needed the overhaul. Rl 18:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. >>sparkit|TALK<< 20:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Art Wikiportal featured picture

I happened to check my Makonde elephant picture today for the first time in months and found it was a featured picture on the Art Wikiportal. I'm incredibly flattered. Thank you.-gadfium 03:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You are most welcome! The Art Wikiportal is quite informal about posting features -- whenever someone gets the impluse to post something, they do, and I've come to adore that elephant. Thanks for making it available. >>sparkit|TALK<< 03:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for categorization

Hi.Thanks for categorizing a couple of articles that I started. Much appreciated. Zeimusu | (Talk page)

You're most welcome! >>sparkit|TALK<< 04:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Categories for David Smith

Hello, I've noticed that you recently changed some categories in the David Smith (sculptor) article. I know you do a lot of work on categories, so I trust your edit, but I am simply curious why you deleted the modern artists category from the article. Thanks. --Sophitus 03:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Yeah, I'm trying to make sense out of the art categories. I've since created "Abstract expressionist artists" category, which is in the "Modern artists" category, but if Smith is miscategorized, please recategorize him. >>sparkit|TALK<< 04:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine than. I didn't know the abstract expressionist category was a subcategory of modern artists. Thanks for clearing this up. --Sophitus 07:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

overcategorisation

Some categories, like Category:Modern artists are so all-embracing that their value is zero. For example Adolf Born ([4]) fits into relatively small category of Czech painters but adding supercategory "modern artist" is just noise, not improving quality of the article, IMHO. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 00:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I do understand and I find the category useful. >>sparkit|TALK<< 03:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Naturalism in paintings

I came here because I see you deal with painter cats frequently. I'm not sure what category Jules Bastien-Lepage fits. His style is usually called naturalism. The difference between realism and naturalism in painting looks like an exercise hair-splitting to me, though, and if I went by the Naturalism (art) article, then he would fit Category:Realism artists. Thoughts? Rl 07:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was curious about the categories, and the next thing ya know... Indeed, it does look like a hair splitting exercise, or perhaps the terms are synonymous. Though there is an "art movement" called Realism, and Lepage seems to fit the description -- realistic depictions and mid-19th century. >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Leonardo's 'surname'

Sparkit, why have you changed all references to Leonardo to 'da Vinci' in the newly-renamed Annunciation (da Vinci)? Considering that the last part of his name just means 'from Vinci' (rather than being a surname in the modern sense), it seems to me to be as awkward as an article on Henry VIII which repeatedly calls his first wife 'of Aragon'. Only a minor quibble; please carry on with the good work you're doing for art-based articles. — Ham 09:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"Leonardo" sounds odd to me, however consistency in terminolgy throughout articles is more important to me and I see that wikipedia style for him seems to be using "Leonardo". So, I've changed that article back to "Leonardo". >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

French Art Revisions

Thanks! Sparkit for the feedback (Talk:List_of_French_artists_and_artistic_movements and User talk:NYArtsnWords) I was partly inspired by the Literature section on the French wikipedia [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littérature] which has a wonderful template. Leave it to the French for logical organisation! Hopefully we can get this to be a strong, serious and cohesive arts section. --NYArtsnWords 18:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Marcel Duchamp

Hey again Sparky. Just wanted to say your Duchamp article looks pretty good. Ben ^T/_C 05:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben! It looks like it might be rather long. Though, I think I'll make a separate article for readymades. Most of the Duchamp images will likely be deleted from wiki soon, since they're on commons as public domain.

BTW: the "art factor" we discussed earlier... check out The Creative Act by Marcel Duchamp. (1957)

>>sparkit|TALK<< 17:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I just read it. So it was "art coefficient" and not "art factor." I found the text at the installation in Yokohama a bit more inspiring than that text though.

I had some free time to thoroughly read the Duchamp article and some of the "sub"-articles (a lot of which you created I noticed). I had a very good time.

The article is not that long as you say. I saw you have still a lot of material you want to add about Chess playing, readymades, etc. I think it's only getting more interesting and if it gets too long that's what wikilinks are there for, right?

I found it extremely interesting to read about the speculations that his readymades were not really readymade. If that's the case and he didn't tell anybody then it's really a great joke! I put the image of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa next to his Mona Lisa in the Duchamp article. They differ a lot actually. Please do more readymade articles, if you can. I want to read about Mona Lisa (Duchamp).

BTW, please wikify your contribution page. You make it hard for people who actually want to read what you wrote.

Ben ^T/_C 05:41, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot more to add to the article and readymades will definitely be a separate article. Thanks for your interest and support! >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Piping removed

You have removed all the piping from all the subcats of Irish artist, so everything is alphabetized under I in the main article! What a mess ! Can you put it back please? Notjim 19:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Escher

Sparkit - noticed you moved M.C. Escher from Modern artists category to Modern painters. Not sure if this is the best category - Escher was an engraver, not a painter. If you want to put him in a category that is more specific that Modern artists, how about Modern printmakers ? Gandalf61 08:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. He was categorized as "Dutch painter" which didn't quite make sense to me, but I just carried that forward. I've now changed both - he's now categorized as "Dutch printmaker" and "Modern printmaker." >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

24.92.28.176

I have listed this one on the vanadalism in progress page. He's editing too many articles. I get the feeling we are feeding the troll. CambridgeBayWeather 05:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I have that feeling, too. Thanks doing the vandalism report. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:11, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page and I think he's trolling on there too. I don't think I reply. CambridgeBayWeather 05:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Mughal painting

hi, so you feel that this article is no longer a stub. I am feeling great ! And, in case, you happen to stumble upon few Mughal paintings please decorate this page with them. Thanks. --Bhadani 13:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for adding so much to the article! >>sparkit|TALK<< 14:44, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your welcome to me on the surrealism Talk page, since I don't feel that welcome there. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You may be more welcome than it feels. I suspect some folks are battle weary from the ongoing contentions about the article. I thank you for your well reasoned and well written comments. >>sparkit|TALK<< 19:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comment. As someone who considers himself a relative newbie on Wikipedia, or perhaps just because of naivete, I'm shocked that there are people working on articles who aren't genuinely trying to produce good encyclopedia articles but just in spreading propaganda. But I realize that that's naive, because it would seem crucial to fundamentalists and ideologists to have Wikipedia articles reflect their belief systems. I found myself thinking before that ultimately some of what we're seeing in that discussion is just a microcosmic version of the problems of fundamentalism and terrorism that exist in the world as a whole, i.e. the gesture of reverting a page because it doesn't correspond to one's orthodox, true-believer conviction about a topic that one has defined as the core of one's belief system is similar to the gesture that underlies terrorism. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Being naive and relative newbie, I too was surprised at the promotional intents found on wikipedia. My mind is spinning with the idea of the relationship of POV pushing and the terror atmosphere in which we live. Is it that spin is so much a part of our culture now, that not only do we expect to hear it, but do many folks now believe it's required? (George Carlin's "American Bullshit" keeps coming to mind.) I'm struggling with words to express this. Maybe I'll have more clarity on it later. >>sparkit|TALK<< 03:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)::

A few thoughts. First, George Carlin is one of my heroes -- and, as you suggest, he is absolutely the most fantastic deconstructor of crap I've ever heard. I love the one he does about religion and God, also the one that includes all of the advertising slogans of American culture in one monologue.

<grin>I'm fond of that piece, too.

Second, regarding the surrealism "discussion" and reverting, I had an illumination this evening, namely I suddenly realized that the people who are acting obnoxiously and anti-cooperatively on the surrealism page may actually not be "true believers" of surrealism but rather may be "trolls". I say this because I read the article on trolls in Wikipedia and realized that the description there applies to these people who are being unco-operative about surrealism, because it seems as though they are more interested in sowing antagonism and dissension than in producing a good encyclopedia article even from a "true believer" point of view. When I looked today at Daniel Boyer's latest revision to the introduction, in which he put in a whole section about how surrealism is not an artistic movement, I looked back at the article's first sentence, which doesn't focus on the concept of artistic movement, and thought, "someone would only be making this change if he were wilfully trying to be hostile and antagonistic", since the first sentence already says that surrealism is more than an artistic movement. And since the other guy won't engage in any kind of even semi-rational dialogue, I'm now thinking that they're not true surrealists but perhaps just troublemakers or "trolls".

The behaviour is certainly troll-like. Disruption is also a revolutionary tactic. Regarding Boyer's addition to the lead, since the article is weighted to the artistic aspects of surrealism, he may be trying to balance that. Though there may be other intents, of course. At the moment I'm wondering, if the focus of surrealism is not art (visual, writing, music), are there doctor, lawyer, laborer, real estate agent adherents to surrealism?

And, third, I do think that the true believer syndrome and the spin syndrome are very important cultural and psychological phenomena right now, although I don't think they're the same thing. I think the true believer syndrome really is a fundamental psycho-social phenomenon in many cultures and among many people, who for some combination of reasons are stuck within a kind of authoritarian and fundamentalist mentality and can't rise to the level of critical thinking (very ironic to find this mentality among surrealists, who used to be non-conformists par excellence and critical of authority -- a surrealist true believer is a contradiction in terms, although it looks like we have a couple on Wikipedia -- whereas I think that the spin phenomenon is something specifically characteristic of contemporary American culture, as you've suggested, i.e. people who are living out the advertising and salesmanship way of being.

Yeah, the spin thing is peculiarly American, or at least Western, and the true-believer thing seems world-wide. This zealotry chills my heart. I don't recall such sharpness from these quarters 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. It's odd, very odd. Though, if the principles of group think as I understand them, hold true, implosions are in the works. But, I've thought that for several years now.

I don't know if you've read Harry Frankfurt's little essay "On Bullsh*t", but one of the great points he makes in there is that people who are lying know what the truth is and are being insincere when lying, whereas people who are bullsh*tting are being sincere!!! They no longer have any kind of recognition or regard for truth. I think that the terrorists are more in the true believer camp and want to destroy or attack people who are deviating from their sense of true belief, whereas spin doctors and bullsh*tters would probably kill or attack people only out of convenience or not to lose face. Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I did read Frankfurt's essay a few years ago. Perhaps it's time for me to read it again. (Speaking of spin doctors, I've gotten three... THREE! telemarketing calls today.) Anyhow, the bullspinners are for the most part more annoying than destructive.

Not only terrorists want to destroy or attack those who deviate from their truth, but those who attack the terrorists seem to me to be doing the same thing. I see no sanity in any of it.

Well, that's all rather dark, eh? I think it's time to dance and sing. >>sparkit|TALK<< 02:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for finding a more succinct category for the Joe Petagno article. Alf ^melmac 12:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism article split

When you get a chance, would you please look at my proposal on the Talk:Surrealism page to create a separate article for current surrealist groups and artists, as a possible way of dealing with a lot of the nonsense and juvenile and hostile behavior that occurs on that page and with regard to the Surrealism article itself, and see what you think? Thanks. Jeremy J. Shapiro 22:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

A fine idea, Jeremy. I've thought about it before. BTW, I no longer "watch" the surrealism article because of the juvenile and hostile behavior. In fact, I took a month away from wikipedia because of such behavior all over wikipedia, in addition to the widespread lack of understanding of NPOV. Just ain't worth the trouble. Sparkit 00:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much for responding and for your thoughts, Sparkit. Makes me feel less isolated and somehow less at the mercy of these delinquents, whoever they really are. I know what you mean about your away time. I had to take a few weeks away from wikipedia because of work, and I noticed that I was spending less emotional energy worrying about these people who are messing up wikipedia and seem to have all kinds of weird emotional needs that they need to act out someplace, and of course it's understandable that wikipedia is appealing, because it's a "global" place to act out one's either neuroses or one's fanaticism. Actually I think I am learning a valuable but unpleasant lesson here. Namely, I have always been a cultural and political radical. But, even though I will never become conservative, I understand conservatives more, in the following sense: I see how easy it is for the work of culture and civilization to get messed up by a small number of people who are hostile or who are driven by personal or ideological motives to "subvert" the order that many people have labored hard to achieve. And that's something that I never understood in a concrete way before. Probably like a lot of serious wikipedians, i spend a lot of time just reverting vandalism, and I'm aware of how much time our wikipedian culture has to spend dealing with that.

Anyway, I'm glad you had the same idea about the current surrealists. I'll wait to see if any other editors respond. I think that maybe the hostile juveniles won't be so problematic if they have their own playground to play in, or at least then I won't feel responsible to deal with it, whereas I do feel responsible that there should be a good article on as an important a topic as surrealism. Jeremy J. Shapiro 01:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Graphic Arts

As a Graphic Artist and Designer I see no differnece in Graphic Arts and Graphic Design. Unless you want to get technical, the design phase is planning what you're going to do for a client, and the actual "art" would be the finished product that the client will use. Cyberia23 20:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no difference either. The comment before yours on the Graphic arts talk page is that of User:SkaldSircha, and their comment doesn't clarify anything to me. Also, the graphics articles are spread about with separate articles for Graphic design, Graphics, Graphic arts and so forth. I've thought about consolidating them, but distracted with other matters. Sparkit 22:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Image galleries

You have in the past commented on Image Galleries nominated for deletion. Most galleries are nominated because the nominators feels that galleries violate WP:NOT. The William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery has been nominated for deletion (here). A proposal to modify WP:NOT is here. Please join either or both conversations and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wishes

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 15:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Graffiti and naming conventions

Welcome to wikipedia, Lerner! Thanks for your work on the graffiti articles and categories. You asked on the category for renaming page about the capitalization standard that I mentioned in the nomination. The topic is covered on the naming conventions page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words . Sparkit 21:55, 26 December 2005 ( UTC)

I made new catagory names that conform to the capitalization standard and marked the old incorrectly named catagories for speedy deletion. Thanks for showing me WP:NC. Lerner 22:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Constructivism

Be careful when disambiguating links. The constructivism link in the Neorealism article is not a reference to the art movement, but a reference to an international relations theory. See: Critical_international_relations_theory#Social_Constructivism. All the best. —thames 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Merger of rug category

There are two categories relating to rugs:

1. Category:Rugs which is a sub-category of Category:Textile arts which is a sub category of the Categories: Artistic techniques | Art media | Textiles | Crafts | Arts and crafts

and

2. Category:Rugs and carpets which is a sub-category of Category:Textiles

I propose to merge Category:Rugs into Category:Rugs and carpets. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Rugs_to_Category:Rugs_and_carpets. As you have categorised some articles to Rugs, I thought you might have views on the merger. Regards--A Y Arktos 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)