Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Nathaniel Stern/Wikipedia Art

Another editor has requested some more eyes at the Nathaniel Stern article. I'm personally off this one but you can follow the discussion here, here and here to get the whole story, but in a nutshell: I edited the article, the subject of the article was not happy with my edits, I asked Threeafterthree to step in as he had made a minor edit to the article and was otherwise uninvolved. He kindly did so but I'm sure he could use some help. freshacconci talktalk 13:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Merge M. C. Escher in popular culture into M. C. Escher's legacy. Latter has broader title, fit together well. Discuss at Talk:M. C. Escher's legacy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Art repatriation

As part of Wiki Public Policy Project I am editing the article on Art Repatriation, which is very sparse at the moment. I would appreciate any suggestions on my proposed outline at the below sandbox address. I have already put in suggestions regarding form and welcome any on content suggestions (although form suggestions are also welcome). Thank you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_repatriation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyoon (talk • contribs) 21:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Psyoon (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Assement template not working

{{WikiProject Visual Arts|class=B|importance=High}}

doesn't work for the importance factor, see: Yug (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, as a project we've never bothered with importance ratings - whether this was ever a conscious decision I don't know. Seeing the difficulties of constructing a scale for us, and the absurdities most other projects ratings produce, I suspect this is the right choice. We have the "most popular pages" list, updated monthly (link on the main project page), which gives us one view of the matter. I certainly use that increasingly to decide where to put my effort. If we are going to add importance ratings, we need people prepared to do at least some solid sessions of rating to catch up. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, noticed. Yug (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the article Calligraphy need expansion on the Islamic and Indian calligraphies sides. The article Western calligraphy need a more solid and general work. I this this articles are of prior importance to your Visual arts project. So please consider them. Yug (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything to do with Indian & Islamic art needs major improvement, and writing about calligraphy needs particular knowledge. Johnbod (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Farmer

I'm hoping to fix up this article in the next couple of days although at the moment I'm a bit busy in RL. This article has been AfD'd although I'm confident that notability is already evident in the article. In any case, the article needs work and any assistance would be appreciated. Farmer has exhibited at Tate Modern, National Gallery of Canada, Art Gallery of Ontario among other museums plus a major site-specific piece completed for the Vancouver Olympics, so I think notability is clear. freshacconci talktalk 17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the help on this article. freshacconci talktalk 13:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Jasper Johns

I will appreciate any comments concerning including this into the Jasper Johns article.

Is this discussion appropriate?:

While in New York, Johns met Robert Rauschenberg, with whom he had a relationship, as well as Merce Cunningham and John Cage. Working together they explored the contemporary art scene, and began developing their ideas on art; Johns, Rauschenberg, Cage, and Cunningham were some of the gay artists and musicians of the 1950s who created what was later called post-modernism.

I find that the first reference is dead and renders the statement unsupported. The second reference is art historically inaccurate as is the direct quote that can be read here at google books: [1] Thanks...Modernist (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the issue that Johns and Rauschenberg had a relationship but that particular reference is not of use? If that's the case, we can find a number of sources that support the fact of the relationship (keeping in mind BLP for Johns). The second statement is not accurate. Postmoderism was created in New York in the 1950s by a handful of gay artists? That's a bold statement and not even remotely accurate. An argument can be made that these four contributed to postmodernism and are central to it but that would require some further elaboration that doesn't violate SYNTH. I'd say remove it. freshacconci talktalk 13:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the statement for exactly that reason. Please watchlist the article as I anticipate a response from the original editor...Modernist (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

New article

(Notice cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity)

I just created Circumcision of Jesus. The scope of the article is both art-historical and theological/historical. Any help you guys can give would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to get this one on the main page by Christmas. Raul654 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Galleries, and Art of the United Kingdom

The old gallery issue has reared its head again at Talk:William_Hogarth#fix_the_clutter. See also Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Galleries where I record clarifications I have made to the guideline & the cleanup template.

I am expanding the pitiful Art of the United Kingdom, but hope not to have to go beyond about 1800. Can anyone help out on the 19th & 20th centuries?

There is also a question whether British art should remain a sort of disambiguation page, or whether, as I believe, it more useful redirected to "Art of the United Kingdom", which contains all the links on the disam page, and many more. I've raised this at Talk:British_art#Redirect after being reverted twice.

Comments/help very welcome. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In a few hours I will help you as much as possible on the 19th and 20th centuries here: Art of the United Kingdom as far as British art goes - it's expendable; I have been tending it as a list but if you have a better idea - then by all means redirect it to Art of the United Kingdom where I think earlier versions were actually heading. I'll take a look at the gallery discussion...Modernist (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic! I asked User:Paul Barlow for help last night, & in case he joins in perhaps leave the Victorians for the moment. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Page naming - how to disambiguate portrait busts etc

There's a discussion at Talk:Otis_Bowen_(Lanagan) proposing renaming it to Otis Bowen (bust) and generalising the discussion to a group of similar articles. Members of this project might want to join in. PamD (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Johnbod (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is something I struggle with a fair bit. Ceoil (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Maya stelae FA nom

I've just posted Maya stelae at WP:FAC and would like to invite any comments on the review page. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Flora (bust)

I have recently created an article about the minor Victorian sculptor Richard Cockle Lucas. My interest was because there are several pieces by him in and around Southampton where I live. In researching him, I came across various references to a bust of "Flora" which was acquired in 1909 by the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin, under the belief that is was by Leonardo da Vinci (on the attribution by Wilhelm von Bode). This book sets out the background extremely well and I have summarised it in the article about Lucas. There are also references to this "scandal" on both the Polish and German wikipedias. The German article accepts that the bust was "probably" by Lucas, whereas the Polish article still claims that it was by the "Leonardo da Vinci school". On Wikipedia commons, the photograph of the bust (see here) is unequivically attributed as the "LEONARDO da Vinci Bust of Flora" and included in the catagory "Sculptures by Leonardo da Vinci". Should Commons be changed to reflect the actual facts? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO Amandajm (talk · contribs) probably knows more about Leonardo than anyone else in the Visual Arts project, leave her an inquiry on her talk page...Modernist (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Daemonic Kangaroo your study is very informative. For the benefit of the public it is important that you add the references to the attribution in WP:COMMONS. Best, (Salmon1 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

I do agree with the above - you might add your disclaimers [2] to the image on commons here...Modernist (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The image has been now been nominated for deletion (although it has been on Commons for nearly 4 years) so I guess this discussion is somewhat irrelevant. I must confess that I was surprised that the picture was on Commons as it's clearly a recent photograph. We would need someone to visit the gallery in Berlin and obtain a picture and publish it on Commons. Hey ho. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount the article has on the work a fair use justification should be acceptable, but you have to copy the image to en:WP and write it up on the image file. Johnbod (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What a beautiful thing it is! I don't seem to have any info to hand on the bust, except that it was attributed to Leonardo but is now considered a 19th century forgery. Amandajm (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The Starry Night

An editor has repeatedly added a trivia section calling it cultural references here [3], any thoughts?..Modernist (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Subtrivial as well as unsourced, not needed. Ewulp (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A stray Simpsons mention is not needed. On a few works like this a better section of such refs might be acceptable. Some of the astronomical stuff is leading that way. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Could we formulate a guideline on this, for VA articles. I would say avoid 'cultural references' ie trivia, unless its from another visual artist. Comix, games, poets etc, not relevant. Ceoil (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We could add to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual arts) but I wouldn't want to be too prescriptive. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections) covers it really. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the need is there to reinforce the trivia guidelines; especially as there are no clear cut definitions of all the strange rubrics that are used like 'cultural' or 'legacy' etc...Modernist (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a concern that is constantly revisited, but so long as trivial mentions lack reliable sources, and are generally original research ("I saw it on TV!"), they add nothing of substance, and are ripe for cutting. JNW (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfinished portrait of George Washington

According to the artist's article, this "painting" is world famous, so why is there no article on it? Simply south (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful to name the artist, so that people can see what you're discussing! Looks as if it might be Gilbert Stuart. PamD (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Athenaeum? The disambiguation page doesn't even list it. We could start with some sort of redirect unless someone is feeling ambitious. I'd hazard to guess that most people don't know the title or artist. There is the Unfinished Portrait page. Maybe George Washington (unfinished portrait) as a redirect? freshacconci talktalk 18:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hypatia in Raphael's School of Athens

I put a notice on the fringe theory noticeboard and was directed here. The article School of Athens should reflect that some identifications of the figures in it are more than questionable. I haven't yet found the origin of the Hypatia-claim, but it could possibly be an internet myth. If anyone knows where to find any serious discussion about it, i'd be thankful. Otherwise, it should be made clear that most regard it as the representation of a young male, maybe a portrait of Francesco Maria della Rovere (as already stated by Bellori, 1695). Gesellschaftsspiel (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

These are constantly being messed about with or vandalized! As always, no one cares much about the art, just the IDs of the figures. However here the claim is referenced, and the two "identities"are not mutually exclusive, any more than Michelangelo/Heraclitus. On a quick google books search the identification is mentioned in many books & seems widely accepted. [4] Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, your Google search shows exactly that it's not widely accepted. Of the 17 books that come up i think only 2 assert the claim that there is a portrait of Hypatia in Raphael's school of Athens (the others seem to be mentioning the search terms "Raphael", "Vatican" and "Hypatia" in other contexts):

• [5] By William H. Young: Ordering America (2010) (not an art historian) gives as a reference the same unreliable anonymous internet-site "newbanner.com" that i've mentioned on the fringe theory board (footnote 22, page 516 of his book)
• [6] R. M. Wright: Introducing Greek philosophy (2010) is a recent introduction to greek philosophy; not a source for the interpretation of renaissance art.

You're right in that the identification of this figure with della Rovere doesn't exclude it being also the portrait of an ancient philosopher, like with Leonardo da Vinci/Plato, Michelangelo/Heraclitus, or Euclid/Bramante. But there are no reliable sources for Hypatia that I could find. Gesellschaftsspiel (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How to name an un-titled work

There's a discussion at Talk:Untitled (Mueller) which others might like to join. It's related to that at #Page naming - how to disambiguate portrait busts etc above but I thought I'd make this into a new section to draw attention to its particular topic. PamD (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnett Newman's Voice of Fire

An IP correctly complained that a photoshop recreation of this piece was being used. I found an actual photo and uploaded it with a fair-use rationale. The creator of the digital version seems to be unhappy and feels his version looks better. Some thoughts on the talk page would be helpful. freshacconci talktalk 15:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It was formally tagged as PD (which made me wonder) I have added a few more fair-use rationale's...Modernist (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Question: What is the Atomium?

It may sound like a silly question but I'd like to hear your opinions as to whether the Atomium is best described as a building or as a sculpture, supposing you have to say one or the other. You may want to reply here or on the article's talk page. Thanks, 9carney (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Former good article

I removed the Pop Culture section from The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci), after moving the only pertinant reference (a homage piece of Pop Art) to the Modern Art section of the article. The rest were uncited television references. Does this change improve its status back to "good", or has it been dubbed a bad article for other reasons?--Chimino (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Battersea Bridge featured article

Today's featured article makes reference to Whistler's paintings but the article claims the Ruskin libel suit was around Nocturne: Blue and Gold – Old Battersea Bridge whereas the Nocturne in Black and Gold – The Falling Rocket article clearly states that it is about that painting (and this is always what I understood to be the case). I started a thread on the Battersea Bridge talk page. The article does state that it's the Nocturne series, but I'm certain that it was just The Falling ROcket; the judge's quip "Which part of the picture is the bridge?" really only makes sense when speaking of Falling Rocket since Old Battersea Bridge it is quite clear. freshacconci talktalk 06:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely right. The suit was over The Falling Rocket. JNW (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lightpainting

This appears to be an article about a term coined and used by one artist, Stephen Knapp. Not a particularly broad genre. My suggestion is that it be redirected to the biography, with any variant text transferred. Any thoughts? JNW (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I can support the idea of a redirect. It also relates to Light art as well as Light sculpture both of which probably should merge into one article...Modernist (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a merge tag, but the discussion links go to 2 places not 1. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to have at it. I'm sick as a dog, and not up to this now. By the way, are we the only ones who read this page? JNW (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well in theory it has 132 watchers, most probably now departed. But I always assume say 3-4 readers for every poster on talk pages, based on my own behaviour (& I am not shy in posting). Equally the Thin Red Line does seem to be getting thinner. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm here but I'm tungsten-tied. Bus stop (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh no you didn't. JNW (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Astronomer (Vermeer)

There is a discussion concerning how this painting entered the collection of the Louvre [7] opinions are welcome...Modernist (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Conceptual art-related DYK assistance, please

Could someone with a working knowledge of conceptual art please participate in the Rosendale Village DYK nomination? The discussion has moved from whether the dissolution of a small village is a work of conceptual art (which the sources support) to a general debate over whether conceptual art is a valid form of art in the first place. I'd really appreciate any insights anyone here could give.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Ducreux

Site of a tremendous amount of fury, signifying nothing. Long term efforts to include text or links to a meme on the artist, which while irresistible to some readers, has not demonstrated notability. Perhaps some VA regulars can watchlist this and help out. JNW (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't seen this meme before. It's hilarious that it got people so impassioned.Warrenking (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is clever and funny, I wonder what Ducreux would think of it all...Modernist (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No Woman No Cry (painting)

I would appreciate some independent opinions about the divergence of views about the contents of this article. The issues should be obvious from the diffs and edit summaries, and the exchange at User talk:I dream of horses. Thanks. -- Theramin (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we seem to have reached an accommodation, but I'd still appreciate a second opinion. -- Theramin (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems ok now; his original comments were not entirely without point, though brusquely done. It's best to add criticism/peacockery or weasel words by using direct quotes, & the links have more that might be added. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

An editor has been trying to add some info to the article and has been reverted a few times. I don't think what he's trying to contribute is necessarily unwelcome but as most of you are I'm sure aware, that particular article is in poor shape for such an important work. Right now it consists of an introduction and a section on cultural references. Obviously it needs expanding. I am going to try to devote some time to it and any assistance would be appreciated. I've replied to the editor's concerns on the talk page. freshacconci talktalk 02:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Freshacconci that this article needs a major re-working however the additions above by the IP 24.27.31.170 and/or by Wastrel Way are grossly inaccurate and aren't particularly helpful either. According to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in its catalog of its massive Manet exhibition in 1983 the painting was made in the studio and the gentleman in the Top Hat was posed by the painter Gaston La Touche. The essay in the catalogue discusses the mirror perspective at length as well as the art historian T. J. Clark's speculation about prostitution and alienation. A lengthy study is called for - however the comments added the other day were not accurate or useful...Modernist (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Basic articles and redirects missing

How is it possible that a common term like art show doesn't go anywhere (as of this writing)? Surely there's SOMETHING... I would redirect it somewhere, but gallery is basically useless for that purpose, meanwhile there is no page for art store or art shop (art gallery redirects to art museum, which isn't the sense of "gallery" I'm referring to), and even art market, art industry, etc., do not exist either. it's as if WP:WikiProject Art were not aware that people buy and sell art and thus haven't created any relevant articles. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Art exhibition or Contemporary art gallery, which you would have found by poking around starting at gallery, are probably the best we have. Art museum attempts to cover commercial galleries too. But this area is extremely poorly served, one of many large gaps in visual arts coverage. "Art show" is pretty vague & colloquial; exhibition is more encyclopedic. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There really should be an article on art market. freshacconci talktalk 15:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin. help needed at Relational art

This article was moved around quite a bit in the last 48 hours. Unfortunately, while trying to restore it to the original title, I moved it to Relation Art which is definitely wrong. Rather than doing a cut-and-paste move I think someone with the tools needs to do a proper history merge. There's a discussion on the talk page but I think right now it should be Relational art (the original article title). Any admins here? freshacconci talktalk 16:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting from different sides?

For this article I ask at different places for copyediting, because I have no idea, how my translation from german sounds in english. My English grammar might be a bit eccentric. I want to avoid to be a burden for the reputation of the artist. The German article uses certain expressions appropriate for writing about art. I am shure, my translation to English lacks some equivalent elegant expressions and grammar.--Fluss (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Painting

The WikiProject Painting still exists. Should it be made into a redirect to this one? --Kleinzach 02:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Double-squares and Squares

The article name Double-squares and Squares should be Double-squares and squares according to MOS. In addition, it seems to be impossible to find any website that supports the claim that these terms were coined by Ronald Pickvance. On the contrary, "double square" is an engineering term that no doubt has existed for a long time: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/double+square and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjustable+square

In addition, the article is written in such a chaotic way that it is impossible to understand what is happening when "combining the legs of two standard sizes of stretchers", especially since only one dimension each of the standard sizes 12 and 40 is explained (and "stretcher" is not). Even less comprehensible is what is meant by "square". --Espoo (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it's a bad translation of French. --Anneyh (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Flame me

This may sound odd, but can somebody break the redirect at flame job? This is a topic important enough in itself to warrant a page, but if it's redirecting, the redlink won't be open. (And I can't find the mag where I saw a brief history of the topic, or I'd just write the blasted article... :( ). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just edit the redirect page (search on the name & there's a link at top left). Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles County Museum of Art

I thought you'd want to know that the Los Angeles County Museum of Art has launched an image library that has both protected images and images that LACMA is releasing to the public domain because "LACMA owns copyright but would like to share this Content with the public without exercising control as part of our mission to engage and educate our communities". These include 10-40MB photos of archaeological artifacts, sculptures, decorative arts, and costumes. The PD status is indicated on the "about this object" link on individual items.

I have created a new "PD-LACMA" license tag in Commons for these images and will be bringing some over as time permits. There are about 2000 files, but not all are Public Domain. - PKM (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

More opinions sought here on a proposal to merge war art into the recently expanded military art. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparent COI in visual arts

Any attention/feedback on this contributor's edits [8] would be appreciated--appears to be an owner of Decima gallery, the article about which he created and has substantially edited. If appropriate, perhaps this can go to COI noticeboard... 99.0.81.41 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see

the deletion request for Commons:Deletion requests/Goddess of Democracy images. Smallbones (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_9#File:Latin_Music_Legends_Forever_USPS_Stamp_2011.jpg

Also nominated File:Mendez vs. Westminster USPS Stamp.jpg and File:Merengue USPS Stamp.jpg. All opinions welcome. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Culture.si - 2000+ free text articles

Culture.si This is a portal by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia with over 2000 articles about Slovene culture. The text is under the same license as Wikipedia; you have to atrivute the source. Just wanted to let you know about this. --U5K0 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Die-cutting (arts and crafts)

Hello, this Visual Arts project is a worthwhile segment of wikipedia. I am looking for help creating an article on die-cutting for arts and crafts uses specifically as the other articles on this topic are focussed on industrial processes. there are a lot of google hits for die-cutting machinery in hobby arts and crafts, I guess it is used seriously in the arts as well, and more industrially, in some book designs/production. I came this way due to an interest in editing The Very Hungry Caterpillar. I was looking to broaden the scope of the article and cover the book design and artistic techniques used as part of the discussion of the book. I created a red link on the Die cutting disambiguation page. Your input would be appreciated! And useful to Wikipedia in general I believe. Kathybramley (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The best thing is to make a start yourself. Let me know on my talk when you have. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Art of Catalonia

(Note: I have been redirected here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts)

I have recently endeavored to translate this article over to the English Wikipedia. Due to me not being the most experienced person in the Catalonian language, some help from people knowledgeable in Catalonian artwork, or who know the Catalonian language very well would really help. Also i wanted to know if the article crossed over with any articles in this WikiProject. I know there is no explicit article on such a subject, but i wanted to know how much it crossed over with such pages as Spanish art. The article now rests at User:Coin945/Art of Catalonia. Thanks.--Coin945 (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried the Catalonian project on en:wikipedia for language help, or the Catalan wikipedia? You are unluikely to find Catalan speakers here. Spanish art is very poor indeed; I wouldn't worry about overlap. It stops at the Gothic - is there more? Some references in English also would be nice. Meanwhile the English is often pretty rough - is it based on a machine translation? Johnbod (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking it one step at a time, translating over the article bit by bit, and adding in references/links as i go. That's why the article is only up to Gothic Art. Lately I've focused more on these two aspects rather than the actual translation... which is why its very rough at the moment.--Coin945 (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mondrian image

Some idiot has replaced the Mondrian image as [9] with his own crappy painting. Simple reverting won't restore it--basically he has over-written the jpg file with his own file. Anyone know how to fix this or do we just get another image of the Mondrian and over-write that. Oy. freshacconci talktalk 15:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. It's been fixed. freshacconci talktalk 15:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Important imagery

Important visual art is on the line here for deletion: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 3, please weigh in...Modernist (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Nice way to start off the day. First, Canada loses its collective mind and now this. freshacconci talktalk 13:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see the nominations were withdrawn. I didn't have a chance to pipe in, so well done everyone else. I imagine this won't be the last time this will come up. It's the kind of thing that really makes me want to pack it in on Wikipedia. Irrational wholesale adherence to misplaced and ill-conceived rules. Fair use means just that. We're not offering print-quality reproductions. Puny jpegs that helps the reader understand the art that we are describing in the article. This is absolutely essential for visual art. I mean, for chrissakes, Voice of Fire! It has its own article! An important piece by an important artist that has a whole separate history up here in Canada. But no, let's delete it and tell the readers that it's a painting of blue and red stripes. Or point them to an external link that may or may not still host an image. Next time I'm in Ottawa I'll snap a picture of myself pointing at it. Maybe we can use that. I'm sure the readers will appreciate it. The mind reels. Rant off. freshacconci talktalk 13:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Those ridiculous nominations have had ramifications in these three tags: [10], [11], and [12], which I will deal with as best as I can over time...Modernist (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would ask him to say on the talk pages what images he thinks should stay, and explain individually why he thinks the others are not needed. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The onus is on him to explain exactly which images count as excessive and which are an improper use of copyright. Tagging and running doesn't help. For readers who don't understand or couldn't care less about the behind-the-scenes navel-gazing at Wikipedia, it's a pretty vague statement to find at the top of the page. freshacconci talktalk 13:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ty Fresh, hopefully it'll stay sane...Modernist (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Style of Writing about Art

As a non native speaker I cannot judge, whether my english is well enough for what I am doing, like working at this and this article. For the changes in the first article it does not seem to be a big deal. If I am not perfect in style - it will be corrected by others over the time. For the second one I really believe, the artist urgently deserves someone bringing my article onto a professional level of writing about art - as my german version of the article is. Anybody here, who can have a look there, whether something can be done for the style? Thanks, --fluss (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fluss, you've done an incredible job for a non-native speaker. I've got to run right now, but I'll help out with a couple of tweaks later on today.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

National Railway Museum

Wikimedia UK is trying to find wikipedians who could assist the National Railway Museum with the creation of articles on Railway related art. Their new gallery will feature work by RAs and has an interesting exhib on North Korean Art. Their staff would like to initially create articles on art, but Wikimedia are looking for a person to be the lead contact wuth this important museum. This could be an interesting opportunity and travelling expenses are likely. Victuallers (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Naming articles of a series of paintings

Hello there, this is my first time here. I was wondering if someone could help me out. I've been working on articles about paintings, primarily about Van Gogh's work. Are there guidelines for naming groups paintings?

1) I've seen and used a number of parenthetical variations (paintings, series of paintings, Van Gogh paintings) or by Vincent van Gogh, but it's probably good to get a consistent approach.

2) I named an artile based upon a title that had been given to a work to prevent it from being mixed up with other similarly named articles, but it seems long: Portrait of the Artist's Mother (1888 Van Gogh painting) and is hard to get to in a wikipedia search. Any thoughts there?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is covered at WP:VAMOS, but by no means all the articles out there conform to the advice there. Personally, if there are 2 or more Portrait of the Artist's Mother by Van Gogh, I'd tend to go for "London" or "New York" - unless they are all in Paris etc. Dates are often variable or dubious for pre-19th century works. Hope that helps - let me know if you have more questions. VAMOS doesn't cover series - I'd go for "Foo (Van Gogh series) I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I like (Van Gogh series), it makes sense, thanks!!! and that concept probably works well for the one painting of the Artist's mother (i.e., "Portrait of Artist's Mother (Van Gogh painting)").--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I's say "Portrait of the Artist's Mother (Van Gogh)" if there is only one - but I think it needs the "the". Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I started by using the consistent conventions for the articles I wrote and updated most of the links to the old names. I would assume that it's 1) not necessary to update the links that are used on someone's talk or user pages and 2) that I should not update the links on the DYK or project logs. Is that right? Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if you have an active DYK nom, change that, but logs, don't bother. Going back into user talk archives would be considered pointless, and likely bad form, so your fine there. Go to the dab page and click 'what links here', adjust the articles pointing in at the old name, and thats it. Don't worry about article talk either. Life is a bit short for that kind of thing, unless of course you want to become an admin. Ceoil 16:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the net-net of what you're saying is that all I need to be concerned about (from my question) is the DYK page, so I'll go scope out making the change for that (if it will allow me). Thanks, Ceoil!

Remove or redirect one-line articles?

There are a number of one-line articles for Vincent van Gogh works from 1881 to 1885.

I worked on two articles to: 1) cover the content of a group of works, 2) without creating a zillion articles and 3) had a link in the List of works by Vincent van Gogh‎ to go directly to the article (so a reader would get context and more info than a one sentence article. For 1881-1882 there's an article titled Early works of Vincent van Gogh‎, in those cases there's a "see also" link to that article. For paintings of peasants and working men and woman there's a new article with a short sentence and no image Peasant Character Studies (Van Gogh series).

From the WP:VAMOS it appears that it's preferrable to not have articles of less than 200 words. What would be a good way to approach this scenario (where applicable, redirect to relevant articles), delete the one-line articles, other? I know that one option is to leave the stubs out there, but articles about individual paintings are not getting created with any regularity now that the most famous ones are completed. Thanks much!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to delete or redirect the one line articles. For me there are two options: (1) to expand each one-line article in the normal way; and (2) to suggest merging two or more articles using the standard merging procedure and the results of the ensuing discussion. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for the procedures and also for examples of proposed mergers. In some cases, it may be reasonable to leave the one-liners as they are, particularly if they also contain an image of the painting in question. They are often useful as links and for providing essential basic information. In any case, many of the works of Van Gogh are worthy of a fairly detailed article where not only the general context can be given but also the composition, comparisons with other works by Van Gogh and perhaps by other artists, details (if available) of the location of the work, how it was acquired and the price paid, and any critical assessments including the work's initial reception. I would, however. also appreciate hearing other views on this matter. And could someone tell me if there is any way of reidentifying the original text of an article that has been redirected? - Ipigott (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the articles mostly consist, in their entirety, of: "Foo is an oil painting created in 1884 by Vincent van Gogh.", merging isn't much use - there's more information at the List, if only the location, which the articles don't give. The titles are not all that distinctive either. Expansion would be fine, but how much is there to say, without a lot of work? I'd redirect to Early works of Vincent van Gogh‎ or Peasant Character Studies (Van Gogh series) etc where appropriate, expecially if there's at least a picture in the other article. The others could be redirected to the list, or just left. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding expanding the articles, there are 900 or so paintings - and the early works don't have a ton written about each individual painting. Based upon past experience, I wouldn't expect that there's a long line of people to start tackling the one line articles. If there's no other opinions, I like John's idea about the redirect where it's appropriate based upon context, subject, etc.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carole. I also agree with redirecting. In VvG's case one or more users created many one-line articles on minor works. If this approach were followed with every major painter, it would be quite a mess, diluting the browsing experience. (Imagine if they then argued for adding each of those articles to Template:Vincent van Gogh!) There is value in such stubs only in their chance of being expanded by someone, but that doesn't seem likely with many of the one-line articles currently in Category:Vincent van Gogh paintings. Lest I be seen as having an advance bias, I was one who at least added a Commons image, when available, to many of those one-line articles when I came across them.[13] Very nice work on your Van Gogh articles, BTW. Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Riggr! (funny name - I hope it hasn't set in so much it's hard for you to get about.) I went ahead and and did the redirecting. Thanks everyone!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Help with article name

Wheat Field with Cypresses, (1889), National Gallery, London. During the summer of 1889 honoring his sister Wil's request Vincent made several smaller versions of this painting.

I hope I'm not monopolizing your discussion page, but it's really helpful to get your input! I started an article about paintings, drawings, etc. that Van Gogh made related to his family that I originally thought could be named "Family portraits by Vincent van Gogh", but I don't think that title is sufficiently inclusive. Sometimes the paintings aren't portraits, but paintings made for a family member or in the case of "Still Life with Bible" to memorialize his father. I couldn't find anything in the WP:VAMOS to help me out.

What would be a good name (e.g., Family works by Vincent van Gogh, (leave it) Family portraits by Vincent van Gogh, something else)? Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Van Gogh's family in his art? Something like that. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I like that a lot - short and to the point.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh paintings of and for his family. I know there were paintings that he dedicated to Mauve, and he made Wheat Field with Cypresses for Wil and others, once again Carole thank you for your hard work...Modernist (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds even better. You got me thinking, Modernist, whether I should broaden the article to include others... but I'm thinking it might be good to stay with the family on this one.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Family paintings by Vincent van Gogh ?? The more concise the better. Le Deluge (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My preference is Modernists, because I think it best captures what someone would read in the article. I do understand, though, that it's helpful to have a short title name, such as John's or Le Deluge's ideas. I'm confused and would be happy with any of them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard any further comments and the more I've written about the family it seems the Van Gogh's family in his art is the most broad (paintings, drawings), open to varying subject matter (portrait, bible, parsonage) and paintings he made with one of his family members in mind. Hopefully that fits the bill for being concise and illustrative of what someone would read in the article. (I'm also aware, though, that there may be capitalization, etc. changes coming)--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_15#Category:Botticelli_paintings

CFD discussion, something of a test case I think. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Finding images

I'm working on Still life by Vincent van Gogh (Paris) and many of the images I have are black/white copies of the paintings. It could be that I'm overly concerned about only using valid images, but so far I've just been using WP commons.

Can someone help me figure out what other sources I can use:

• Somewhere I read (WP:MOS, WP:VAMOS) one way is to use google images, but would there need to be a screening process to ensure the image is ok for use. Is that right?
• I received what appears to be a very cool link to find images, but I'm not been successful at it. I think I'm mising something (including now the link that I wanted to paste in here).
• Another source that I may be missing?

Thanks so much! You're a really great team to bounce ideas off of -- and help keep me on track!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents: images of paintings found online are the single easiest type of image to upload without spending a weekend studying policy--assuming they're in the public domain. On Wikimedia Commons, select the license type "Reproduction of a painting that is in the public domain because of its age". I don't know what the public domain threshold is at the moment, but Van Gogh obviously meets the age requirement. So, go ahead and save any Van Gogh image to your computer, upload it to Commons, and add it to an article. If you need technical help doing so, that's another question... Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great! Thanks, Riggr! They look so much better in color.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, but NB this only applies to flat two-dimensional objects, not sculptures, or even coins. But the "paintings" license applies to drawings, prints etc too. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Artwork categorization by country

I am interested in developing a category structure for artworks' locations when they do not have a "collection category". For example, Category:Paintings in Italy or Category:Artworks in Italy would seem useful. The Italian wiki has paintings by country. Again, the categories would be applied only to pages that don't have a collection category. So "Category:Artworks in France" would not be attached to "Mona Lisa", but it would be attached to "Category:Collections of the Louvre" "Category:Collections of museums in France" (ignoring the fact that not everything in the "Collection" may be art; not all categories are "defining" for everything beneath them but rather are labels). More to the point, "Category:Artworks in Germany" would be added to "Stuppach Madonna"--any work that is housed in a smaller museum, cathedral, etc.

Would other VA editors support this system? If so, what terminology would be most inclusive of items beyond paintings? (Note that we already have Category:Sculptures by country.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think "foo from .." is more useful than "foo in..." Commons is full of unhelpful "in" categories - I can't believe people plan their holidays using them, which seems the main use for them. The Italian categories in particular are a nightmare because they have layers of sub-categories, as do some French & US ones. If you actually want to look for something in these categories there are potentially several hundred you need to see to be complete. Of course many multiple works of art, including prints and many Rodin etc sculptures, are "in" many places, and lost works of art are in none. But don't let me put you off. I also think both WP & Commons categories place far too much emphasis on "paintings", & badly undercategorize other types of art, although there are many more articles on painting article. So any extra categorization here must be good. Like, I think, most English people, I don't much like "artwork", which here is normally something that album covers & print advertisements have. We prefer "Works of art", which is the name for the parent category too. There's nothing wrong with "art", but unfortunately for "from" this name is taken for the overall parent, eg Category:Spanish art. But if you want to do "in", I think "Art in Spain" is ok. If you use these slightly vaguer names, both "in" and "from" categorization may be justified (ie a Spanish painting in London might be regarded as "art in.." both countries (if that's what you want). Note that the Category:Outdoor sculptures has a number (13) of "in" national categories - I can see the sense of this more. That's many more than Category:Sculptures by country (which the dickhead creator had not added to Category:Sculptures). Does that help? Probably not. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it helps. I certainly don't like the highly specific Commons categories from the browsing perspective, but then their problem is the sheer number of items that need 'classification'. I'm not interested in the 'Art in Foo' approach because of its ambiguity and potential duplication of 'Fooish art'. It sounds like, if I proceeded, the compromise would be 'Works of art in Foo', but I'll leave it. Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes that would the way. Just categories that pulled together the various scattered subcats - museums, sculptures etc - would be useful, and the European "outdoor sculpures" are I think badly undercategorized in that tree - many are mixed up with all sorts of other stuff in "Monuments & memorials in ..." cats. Lots of work there. The "Public art" project has improved the US ones a lot, maybe only in some areas. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Van Gogh steam

My energy around Van Gogh seems to be winding down. For those wanting to weigh in or those like Modernist or Ceoil who have been directly involved: I'd be happy to get in either some edit work (going back and doing a tighter edit and/or work on refs/bibliographies) - or do a couple more articles so there's some context for a subject (e.g., nude ladies, still life of Arles and/or Auvers) are a couple that come to mind. Any thought about the best way to round things out?

Carole I think you might give it a rest for now, but go back through and do some copyediting. Then tackle the few more groups that you want to add. You have done a magnificent job...Modernist (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good to me. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Van Gogh primer

Made a separate item so the two items don't get mixed up. One thing that I'd like to do, if it would be worthwhile, is document some of the specifics for someone who might want to come in and work on Van Gogh articles:

• Key articles and lists
• Categories and subcategories (some newly created) to help identify and classify articles
• For someone who's a beginner and wants to get a start with an article, they may want to take information from one of the "Category:Series of Vincent van Gogh paintings" articles and pull out a topic that they'd like to write about. I'd be happy to put something together about: 1) how to go about that, 2) ideas for researching, 3) tips for things / types of sites to avoid
• Some style guidelines that I've picked up from Modernist, Ceoil and this discussion page that might be helpful to share

Do you think, or parts of that, would be useful? Nite.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm taking silence to mean the idea doesn't seem very helpful.

What do you think about a Vincent van Gogh overview page that would contain info and links to:

• Biography
• Chronology
• Relationships:
  • Family: Theo, Wil, Family in art
  • With a bit more information about friends influence: Bernard, Gauguin
• List of Works; Drawings, Water-colours and Sketches
• Have a brief description of each period with highlights about the nature of the work links specific to that period (more thorough than is appropriate for the biography)
• Provide links to categories by period (Holland, Paris, Arles, Saint-Remy, Auvers) and series
• Some of the best reference documents--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

neither of those sound like standard types of WP, & are more "behind the scenes" stuff than encyclopedia pages. One way is to make it a page in userspace - a sub-page of your user page, and announce & link it at various VG talk pages - bio, template, category etc. The second one sounds like a "portal" page, which you could add a little template link to on all relevant articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, good points. I took a look at the Portal:Visual arts page and love it! The sections for the page appear to be transferable (intro, image, categorys, selected article, major topics, quote, bio, DYK, wikiprojects). It seems, though, unlike an article - where an initial writer needs to be involved, with a portal there's a commitment to keep up the material (e.g., current). I'd be happy to do that. So the next question is, would it be ok for the Visual Arts project to set up a portal page for Van Gogh? Do you think that is something that would be a useful addition to the visual arts project?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat skeptical; like Johnbod I think it would be more a behind the scenes type page; although useful to navigate between all of the varied Van Gogh material we now have. You might give it a try in your user space as you have done with the many articles that you've created and we'll take a look, the Van Gogh template is getting very crowded...Modernist (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep the intention is to be a navigational tool - and I agree the Van Gogh template is full right now. If you don't think it would be useful, I'd rather not spend the time. (I sometimes get ideas I like, but not necessarily ones that everyone would like - this might be one of those. An idealist?? - just attempting to be funny. :) )--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

VIAF authority

Anyone know anything about VIAF authority control? A new editor is adding this code to art-related articles, such as this. It's related to Library of Congress codes but otherwise I have no idea what purpose this serves. My wife is actually a librarian so I'm sure she'd fill me in, but she's not here. Any idea what this is for? I'm more curious than anything else. freshacconci talktalk 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Argh. When I viewed your diff I assumed that the template provided hidden "meta-data" and was not visible on the article page. I was wrong. I don't see any need for it to clutter our already-cluttered pages, or how it supports encyclopedic goals as a visible element; but there's nothing VA-related here other than that the editor happened to be adding it to that type of biography. I really hope this isn't the next got-to-be-on-every-page template--a page-wide box for a few inches of text! :) Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

double-aargh. Unless some utility can rapidly be demonstrated, the template should be deleted. As it is, an Alibris/Amazon etc search seems more helpful. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeking Visual Arts Ambassador for WikiProject MoMA

As the new Wikipedia-in-Residence fostering institutional cooperation at the the Museum of Modern Art, I'd love to invite WikiProject Visual Arts folks to come participate! In particular, we are also looking into a Visual Arts Ambassador to WikiProject MoMA (see Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA/Members).--Pharos (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Rainy Taxi

Any input at Rainy Taxi, by Salvador Dali, is welcome. Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Great handle, Bus stop for this work! I added some comments you may want to kick-around on the talk page Talk:Rainy Taxi.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Works by Frank Weston Benson

I've drafted something to show: - Examples (not considering taking on an entire listing at this time) of works by Frank Weston Benson in categories (early works, portraits, portraits of family members, wildlife...) - With the intention of providing short summaries of information in the "Comments" column about paintings so that readers could get a sense of his work - without having to have a lot of individual articles written.

Does anyone have thoughts or suggestions about the early draft in progress (e.g., sections, layout in table, other)? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone interest in helping with bios of art writers / critics?

I'm trying to get back in the swing of things but so far I've found little help on bios. Discussion questions go unanswered. So if anyone else has an interest in art writers and critics I'd gladly help out with you. I'm also interested in influential present day gallerists. I'm surprised a bio about Edward Winkleman is not on Wikipedia yet.SunRiddled (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've created and contributed to some of these articles and all for it. Just make the pages and I'll contribute. But yeah, it's all way out of date. I had to create a page for NADA, LOL! Also, I think a lot of the wikipedia art editors are British, hence no Winkleman article. Warrenking (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, in an attempt to encourage more edits to art writers I created the Art Blog template with a few of the major art bloggers including Tyler Green who still doesn't have a wiki page. Template:Art_Blogs Warrenking (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Soft-edge Pop

Is this article a joke? There are virtually no sources, and the article communicates next to nothing, in my opinion. I find little online about Soft-edge Pop. The writing style I would describe as opaque—communicating nothing. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As I remember someone created it, I sort of protected it, but delete it if you are so inclined - I won't object...Modernist (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this article really is ludicrous - "So foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing" - hence I support AFD nomination too. Artiquities (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL delete it!Warrenking (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability of paintings

Are there any guidelines to determine the notability of paintings? Specifically I noticed Russian Winter. Hoarfrost (painting) and Malaya Sadovaya street (painting) and can't see how they are notable, but given that all the references are offline, and online searches produce nothing, I wanted to check here before nomming them for AfD. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

He is an incorrigible and tireless spammer imo. Delete them please...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree and as there have been no other comments, I'll nom them for AfD in a momment. SmartSE (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh articles

I am very concerned about several people who are working on Vincent van Gogh articles in an uncivil, dramatic and unproductive manner. I have written 40 articles, worked on another 20, and worked extensively on the List of Works by Vincent van Gogh - and added some input to the Vincent van Gogh article. I have recently learned that I have some verbiage in articles that have some copyright issues and would like to resolve them with help from someone on the VA project who has an objective, fair-minded approach. And, I hope to be able to continue being involved in the VvG articles but the interaction is so incredibly unprofessional, uncivil and unhelpful with two individuals, I don't know that I want to in this present manner of discourse. My talk pages have information under "Some advice" and "refactoring" but it may be difficult to follow.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear - after reading a source in the main VvG biography, then linking into a page Carole wrote and reading almost the same words, I became concerned and brought it up on her page. Spotchecks show problems, to say the least & at this point I'm inclined to send this to CCI given that 40 pages are at stake. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

And I would have loved to have been able to work through it with TK!!! I will respect your opinion about the 40 or so VvG articles I've written. If it's better to work through CCI than try to resolve it with the editor, of course, I'll respect that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am recusing myself for now, because I know everyone and the issues too well. IMO we often rewrite material in our own words and we always reference our sources. This is a dispute over the meaning of in our own words and how close to a source is over the edge. All the parties involved work very hard, do very good work and are wound a little tight...Modernist (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong audience. This is not the forum. Ceoil 23:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You all can figure out what you'd like to do with the VvG articles. I'm done with it. For a topic I loved and spent many hours on, you've worn me down. For an issue that came up that I would have loved to resolve, I give up - I'll tackle other articles but nothing to do with VvG. I'm done. For the first time in my life I am conceding: there's no way that I will work with these people again. Congratulations, you finally wore me down. I will not check back and any nasty comments to my talk page will be immediately deleted. I just hope that you'll be a little kinder, a little more helpful, a little less distrustful and a lot more considerate of others in the future.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even a member of this project, but quite honestly I'm out the door because of this drama. The fact remains that the pages and others need to be looked at for copyvio, and neither I nor Ceoil are at fault for that. Period. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Toyohara Chikanobu

The on-going development of Toyohara Chikanobu would likely benefit from peer review -- see Wikipedia:Peer review/Toyohara Chikanobu/archive1.

My guess is that it is ripe for Good Article review -- see Talk:Toyohara Chikanobu/GA1. What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Mfd: WikiProject Sculpture

The recent Mfd for WikiProject Sculpture located here ended in 'no consensus'. Perhaps members here would like to take the initiative in dealing with this? Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach 01:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sculpture of the United States

Would appreciate editors input here: [14], thanks...Modernist (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

History of art article

Has anyone had a chance to look in on this. An editor has been making some major changes (all without edit summaries I'm afraid). I haven't had time to go through it but I was instantly worried when I read the first line that states that the history of art is a social science! Anyone want to venture into this? freshacconci talktalk 22:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

He's translating this - [15]...Modernist (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. It's not an article I ever really paid much attention to (the original English version). I would want to change that first sentence a bit though. freshacconci talktalk 22:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what comes from those frigging templates... No doubt any references will be to Spanish books. Meanwhile Spanish art is genuinely dire. His English is somewhat stilted, he doesn't understand the proper scope of the article, he overlinks like crazy, but it was so bad before, almost anything will be an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Anything? Surely not anything, I think we should keep an eye on it..Modernist (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Category/Article "Found art"

I've been whittling away at Category:Found art. I've removed from that Category, Bottle Rack, My Bed and Everyone I Have Ever Slept With 1963–1995. In my searching I find little support for the terminology "found art". My feeling is that the article Found art probably should be deleted. I think it is mostly WP:original research. Found object, and the French term Objet trouvé are significant terms in wide use. I think "found art" is a variant of "found object" that seems to have its origin here. We shouldn't be coining terminology. I'm troubled by what I see as the promoting of a term that does not arise in reliable sources. I think we should stick to actual terminology. I'd like to nominate the Found art article for deletion. This is a complicated area. I think we do the reader a disservice when we introduce our own language. We have the already mentioned Found object article. Additionally we have the Readymades of Marcel Duchamp article. There are further distinctions that can be made. Marcel Duchamp articulated for instance "assisted Readymade". I read here:

"Marcel Duchamp's concept of the "Readymade" suggested that an artist could select an ordinary object, present it as one's own, and declare it a work of art. His innovation was certainly among the most scandalous and significant transformations to the history of modern art. This work [Why Not Sneeze, Rose Sélavy?] is what Duchamp called an "assisted Readymade," in which the original object is altered by the artist."

I point out the above to show that we have precedent for language being used in a very precise way in relation to the subject at hand. We have a good source talking about this topic here. Notice that the term "found art" doesn't make an appearance. I found precisely one source for "found art" a few days ago and I can't find it again. I don't think it is an important term. Bus stop (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I neglected to mention List of found art.

This might be a source. But is it sufficient? We have the following three entities on Wikipedia:

1. ) List of found art, 2. ) Category:Found art, 3. ) Found art.

This book is not even cited at any of the above three Wiki pages. I fail to see how the term "found art" differs from the term found object. I am concerned that the new term is getting its start on Wikipedia. I am suggesting eliminating all three of the above pages. These are not new pages. Found art goes back to a whopping 2002! But at the "Found art" article I can not find even one source, available online, showing that the term has been used. The only source that I can find is the one I linked to above. Bus stop (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Goodfellow

Is this artist notable enough for an article ? He came to my attention as the cover artist for Muriel Spark's The Takeover but I noticed he was also cited in Wikipedia as the cover artist of the following books :-

• Keep the Giraffe Burning
• The Encyclopedia of Fantasy
• The Fortress Series
• Fever
• The Practice Effect

and a nominee for BSFA Award for Best Artwork in 1982 Is he worth an article ? GrahamHardy (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See List of illustrators and match him up credential wise...Modernist (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Dürer's Parents with Rosaries inquiry

Hi, I think you should take a look at this article's talk page.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Article which could use help

This article links to this project: Dominant group (art). I think it could use some help making its meaning more clear to non-experts. Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing imagery from MoMA

An editor is deleting images that have valid reasons for being in this article and valid Fair use Rationales. Please express your opinions here, [16] I'd like others input there or here [17] at the AN. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors interested in design and digital media

Hi folks. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is working with a class for the upcoming term on the history of design and digital media, and we're looking for some experienced Wikipedians with an interest in the subject area to support the class as Online Ambassadors. If you're interested, please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

New article Marlborough Fine Art

I just started an article for Marlborough Fine Art. This is a major New York gallery, but unlike Zwirner, Gagosian and Pace, had no article until now. Please contribute. Thanks. Warrenking (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Morris

Any senior editor interested to advise this sophomore? In respect of this article I have had several tags repeatedly removed and no action taken on my advice on the talk page to cut-down the number of images towards the MoS; maybe I just fuhgeddaboudit? Need guidance on this. Artiquities (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a senior editor but can't you make the gallery yourself and move the images to it? I personally see no reason to cut the number of images but moving them so that it's an easier read would be ok. It's great that this article is so thorough. I just wish the articles on more significant artists had as much info or as many images!Warrenking (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Warrenking, it's good that they are there, yes, I had concerns about the article layout previously and created a gallery, but it was not welcomed by other editors of that article. Yes, lots to do on artists on WP, I agree. Artiquities (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jordan Statue

Should the Michael Jordan Statue infobox say 12 feet or should it include the base height and say 17 feet?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Twelve feet Tony, the base can vary...Modernist (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Meaning that in the future they could place it on a different base and it would still be considered the same statue, I presume.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I guessed right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I and the Village

Gratuitous tagging of a stub, please weigh in here [18] as to the tagging of this stub...Modernist (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

James Kalm proposed merger/deletion

James Kalm is not a real person, nor a notable journalist according to Wikipedia's standards. Kalm is the pseudonym of artist Loren Munk. I've moved the information about "Kalm" to the Munk page and propose that an admin delete the Kalm page. If his pseudonym was particularly notable I could see it having it's own page but it's not.Warrenking (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Create an AfD [19], makes sense...Modernist (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Let it be...Modernist (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Main image choices at Michael Jordan statue

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chicago#Michael_Jordan_statue_main_image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Leslie Kulesh proposed deletion

The artist does not meet the criteria for a notable artist so I'm proposing the article be deleted. So far there have been no revisions or discussion on the talk page regarding deletion.Warrenking (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion here. Please review the article and put a keep or delete. Thanks.Warrenking (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Miró

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Miró as a favour to the Catalan Wikipedia. They are keen to get the articles they have written into English so tourists can see them when they visit Catalan museums (they have links to Wikipedia in one museum). If you want to find out more about this artist then you might care to help. Thanks anyway Victuallers (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Visual arts related CfD

• Please note that I've initiated a rename discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_29#Category:Works_about_art. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Basic misunderstandings

continue apace at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_30#Category:Art_journals. Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Jim Gary/Sculpture

Should Jim Gary be included in Sculpture? Discuss at Talk:Sculpture#Jim Gary. Bus stop (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Art and Religion

I just noticed that WP's coverage on the relationship between art and religion seems kind of poor, considering how important the subject is. The best I could find for visual arts were: Sacred art and Cult image. Religious music is better. What's missing is a discussion on the influence of religion on art. That's got to be notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that navigating and finding information on this topic is very poor, but I think our coverage is pretty good. 10:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

B-Class assessment requested

Hello. I would like to request a B-Class assessment for The Magpie (Monet). Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Strange citations from gallery material

I came across an ambiguous reference for a long quote on the Peter Kennard article and raised it with the editor that added it (see HERE). He says the source was 'a kind of pack with reproductions of photomontages along with an essay'. Does anyone else agree that this is not a verifiable source, or is it just me? Sionk (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem solved, the book is catalogued by Google Books and has been on sale at ABE Books too. Sionk (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles needed on Mexican art

Somebody at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mexico said: "One day, someone should create an article on Mexican art. Kaldari (talk) 06:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)"

• The current content is at Culture_of_Mexico#Art with Pre-Columbian art and Mexican Muralism being the "main" articles
• Articles in Spanish include: es:Pintura de México, es:Escultura de México, es:Anexo:Arquitectos de México (these ones do NOT have English versions)

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/List of most expensive sculptures dubious claim

At Template:Did you know nominations/List of most expensive sculptures the nominator is claiming the List of most expensive sculptures is current. I am uncomfortable presenting this on the main page. I need a few experts to chime in on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edition?

I am looking for a word (but know the meaning) when translating from Japanese to English. The meaning is: "set of artworks that are owned by the Smith family (or Smith Museum, etc)" I need to refer to this set of artworks in prose, somehow, preferrably in a short way. Can I write "Smith edition" or "Smith Museum edition", or is there a better word for "edition"? If you are interested, there is a related discussion here and the article in preparation is this. bamse (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The word 'collection' (for a 'set of artworks') sounds much better, from your description. Sionk (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, for not being very clear before. As far as I understand "collection" would refer to all the artworks in possession by the family or the museum. However what I have is a bit different: say, I have an artwork titled "Paintings of the planets" which consists of eight paintings. Now, four of those paintings happen to be in possession of the Smith family and four of these paintings are in possession of the Miller family. Can I write something like "Smith edition of the Paintings of the planets" to refer to the set of four paintings in possession of the Smith family? bamse (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

An 'edition' is a singular thing that is produced or published. It sounds wrong. You're correct to say the Smith's art collection would refer to all the art owned by the Smiths. Maybe the Smith's part-collection of the "Paintings of the planets" would describe the paintings in that series owned by the Smiths? Or you could say something like 'the "Paintings of the planets" works owned by the Smiths'. Or part-series? Sionk (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will see what sounds best. bamse (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Template color

Appreciate any opinions here: [20], thanks...Modernist (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to give my opinion but, having read through the sections several times, have no idea which template you're all talking about. Sionk (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

We are referring to the Ernest Hemingway template...Modernist (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Arts at peer review

Portal:Arts is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Arts/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: Animation

Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibility of increasing images of works of art from India

Can I as an Indian take a photograph of a painting from a Museum display and place it under a free license on Commons? Images of art by Indian artists are hard to come by as we have found while trying to develop articles on famous paintings by Indian artists. AshLin (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Commons Freedom of panorama page you can, if it is permanently "situated" in the museum. Not sure if that would mean on display, or just owned by. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We should also abide by an individual museum's policy on photographing works of art, which probably varies. freshacconci talktalk 14:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that has increased my understanding. AshLin (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice sought about some non-free images

It would be very helpful if some editors who are more knowledgeable than I am about American painters could have a look at Talk:Allen Tupper True#Three images in Work section. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion here: [21]...Modernist (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of William Bliss Baker

Please come participate: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/William Bliss Baker. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Media copyright questions

Can others interested in the use of images especially in biographies of contemporary artists have a look at this discussion thread on the page for Media copyright questions? Bus stop (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1000 Missing van Gogh's

Any knowledgeable insights and opinions concerning this discussion is welcome [22], thanks...Modernist (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of North American Indigenous visual artists template

Please participate in the discussion here! Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:North_American_Indigenous_visual_artists -- SarahStierch (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Shanghai art world

[Crossposted from WP China]

Via List of women photographers, I discovered the article on one Rose Tang (seemingly a "persona" rather than a person). This led me to articles on Island6, Liu Dao, Wang Dongma, Thomas Charvériat, Zane Mellupe and Ifa gallery. I haven't yet looked in their histories, but they link to each other a lot and not much to anywhere else, they have little independent sourcing for what they say, and they obviously have certain other features in common. Indeed, it all seems a bit of a "walled garden". Could anyone here who, unlike me, knows something of the "art scene" of Shanghai please take a look at some of these? -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to disambiguate Icon

At Talk:Icon#Requested_move. I'm notifying all projects. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Visual arts will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in visual arts - as artists, collectors, historians, subjects, etc. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've created a List of female sculptors. This seems to be an area of the fine arts where women are significantly less well represented. Hope it is of use, I see people have already started to expand it, great!! Sionk (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to direct some of my translating efforts toward that area, ie: seeing what articles on German women artists are on the DE wiki, but not here, and then stubbing out articles for them... Lithoderm 23:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mass edits by Twomorerun/24.11.246.211

This editor had previously edited as an IP in October and is now back with the same edits. Mostly a nuisance, his edits are based on his interpretation of policy: he's not 3RRing and knows enough about the rules to avoid getting blocked but he clearly does not wish to work with anyone and sees himself as the only one who is correctly editing. There's no discussing things with him. He works in visarts areas amongst others. freshacconci talktalk 17:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I also sent him a note about his edits and about this discussion. freshacconci talktalk 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - the edits are basically a problematic nuisance...Modernist (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Now he's taken his ball and gone home. I'll never understand tis type of editor. Actually, I do understand that they are controlling personalities who cannot stand input from others. Why he thinks that would work on Wikipedia is bewildering. I'm sure he'll be back in four months. freshacconci talktalk 01:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

When five or six fairly long standing editors suggest that your work is not helping, it's probably best to back up, have a cup of tea and re-consider your approach.Span (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Art

Concerning changes to the lead and introduction to the article Art - please weigh in here: [23]...Modernist (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)