Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Camprio

I'm attempting to write an article on the painter Camprio, & it was suggested that I also ask for further information & help here. As I understand it, posting here & in the reference section is not cross-posting, so please forgive if I am wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Camprio_-_painter.2C_biography Thanks Gpfx 17:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a Camprio and have done a little research. He was born in Milan in 1927 where he studied at the Academy of fine arts. Most of his work in of Mediterranean coastal scenes but he also painted scene of Holland. He was married to a Dutch woman. Much of his work was sold in fine department store art galleries in the 1930's and 40's. It was showy and affordable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.47.23 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

French art history

The whole French art series (all centuries and subpages) is in serious need of work (expansion, footnotes, references, clean-up) by knowledgable specialists. Thanks -- NYArtsnWords 03:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Painting

This was a list but has now been hugely expanded by a few editors; some of it may be cut & pasted from other articles, I'm not sure. Much of it is repeated at a new Western painting. The coverage & quality seem pretty variable to me. As these are I suppose flagship articles, people may like to help out. Johnbod 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian art

and almost all articles in this area really need help! Johnbod 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to know how to help to contribute in this article. I work with the famous art-historian Benoy K Behl who is renowned for his work on the subject of Indian art. He is willing to contribute and help in building up this article on Indian art on wikipedia. Please do tell how this can be done. Pooja Kaul 09:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just follow the information on editing in your welcome message. But read the stuff about copyright & the GDFL licence - material must either be released under this or not previously published. Also the general tone & so on needs to conform to Wikipedia style. Hope that helps. Johnbod 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content

Below is a copy of a request I posted on the Non-free content project talk page...

"Would someone from this project kindly discuss with the folks on the Visual arts project (and possibly related projects) about the history and current state of non-free images on wikipedia as related to visual arts? A bit about what is expected on non-free image pages, and how the visual arts editors can ensure policy compliance and what the visual arts editors can do to aid the Non-free content project. The seemingly sudden removal of images from visual arts pages and notifications of pending deletion has been jarring to many visual arts editors. (I understand that it's not new policy, but without forewarning it's coming as a surprise to some, I suspect.) Many thanks!"

--sparkitTALK 17:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


The main policy page on this topic is here: Wikipedia:Image use policy. The help page is here: Help:Image page.

  • All images on Wikipedia must have both a source and a copyright tag. It seems tedious sometimes, but it is important from a legal standpoint. I see Sparkit's made a handy infobox template for art images at {{Image information art}} to supplement some of the other templates (linked on that page). Thanks! :)
  • Free images are legally free - they are available for anyone to use for any purpose, with occasional disclaimers, such as requiring attribution. For example, the author could say, "Use this however you want, but credit me as the author." It is not acceptable to upload images that are for non-commercial use only or that are for use on Wikipedia only with permission; those are not free. Free images include those that have been released into the public domain and images to which the creator has released the rights. Common reasons for an image to be public domain include: the author died more than 100 years ago, it was published in the United States before 1923, or it was created by the US federal government. There are other reasons, of course. Different countries have different expirations on copyright, so you may need to check those if the author died less than 100 years ago. Specific tags for public domain art are available. A photographer will frequently release an image under a free license, but must do so explicitly. If you find images on a website and there is nothing that actually says the images are free use, consider them copyrighted.
See also the tags for public domain, free licenses, and US government images.
If it is a free image, upload it to the Commons (if possible). If you find a free image, but don't have a chance to upload it right away, you can tag it with {{Move to Commons}}. It is always preferable to do it yourself, but this template may be helpful. There are tools to help you move images to the Commons at Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. If there is an image you want to add information to that is hosted at the Commons, don't edit the page on Wikipedia; make an account on the Commons and put it there instead. Commons-hosted files should have a red tab at the top and its description page can be deleted under CSD I2 otherwise (which won't delete the image).
  • Non-free images are copyrighted and are only acceptable on Wikipedia if they cannot be replaced with a free equivalent. These are not accepted on the Commons.
There are three requirements for non-free images:
  1. It must have a template tag.
  2. It must detail a fair use rationale to explain why a non-free image is "fair use" and irreplaceable.
  3. It must not be orphaned (i.e., it must be used on an article page and not a user or talk page).
Examples of non-free images include 2-dimensional art and album covers - there is no way you can produce a free equivalent. You can't take a picture of a painting and release it under your own license. A copyrighted photograph of 3D art frequently is not fair use because someone could take a picture of it and release it under a free license. If this is not true, and it would be extremely difficult to produce a free equivalent, you must explain this in the rationale. There are some general examples at WP:FURG. This can get tedious, and many images slide by with no rationale, but someone may come by and mark your image for deletion if it is not included.
In addition to the requirements on the image page, there are restrictions on where you can use non-free content in Wikipedia. You could use Image:Dsotm.jpg on a page providing critical commentary of Pink Floyd's album The Dark Side of the Moon, but you could not use it on a page about prisms, and you cannot use it in a gallery of Pink Floyd album art unless it provides commentary and is not merely there to look at.
  • Deletion: If you find an image you think is unsuitable for Wikipedia, you can place a warning template on it. Most of the templates you may need can be found at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. You will rarely need the speedy deletion I4, I5, I6, or I7 templates for images because they should first be tagged with one of the templates found at the top of IfD for a period of time (between 2 days and a week). Blatant copyright violations can sometimes be deleted right away under CSD G12, but this is meant for obviously commercial photographs with no possible fair use. (For example, a picture of a peony listing its source as Corbis would be G12, but an image of a book cover found at Amazon.com would not be G12). Images with no license can be tagged with {{nld}}, which puts it at Category:Images with unknown copyright status for seven days.
If an image of yours seems to be suddenly deleted without proper warning, it's frequently because someone wasn't being considerate and didn't use deletion warning messages. There's a reason the speedy deletion process for images takes several days, and not warning uploaders or not placing caption messages sort of defeats the purpose.
  • How you can help: Check out art images on article pages as you come across them. Make sure the image has a source and the appropriate copyright tag, and if it's not free, make sure a fair use rationale is included. Images are a bit neglected on Wikipedia compared to other projects, probably because of the confusing copyright issues. :) If you're interested in delving deeper, take a look at some images in Category:Images of art. Many of these can either be moved to the Commons or can have a fair use rationale attached; a large portion of them do not have infoboxes yet, which you can add. Your interest in the visual arts makes you, the WikiProject Visual arts participant, the best person to add infoboxes to art images.
  • Questions: If you have additional questions about images, you can ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I hope I covered enough and wasn't too vague; I apologize if I seemed wordy. :) --Strangerer (Talk) 08:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Strangerer, for the wonderful explanation! --sparkitTALK 11:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a very good explanation! Also be sure to check out Wikipedia:Basic copyright issues for some more information. As to the possible concerns over recent changes to the templates, (for example {{art}} changing to {{Non-free 2D art}}) this isn't a change in policy at all, and it certainly doesn't mean the images are in any danger. It is only a change in how we are tagging images. For machine readability we would like all the non-free image license templates to start with that term. Most of the images that are in articles about them are clearly acceptable per the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. This project definitely should advise us though going forward, it is certainly not our goal to lose any images that we can keep! - cohesion 19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Western painting

I'd appreciate help in sorting out, and figuring out which images can be used with a fair use explanation in educational articles such as Western painting. All input from Visual arts editors will be appreciated. Please weigh in here or at Talk:Western painting Thanks Modernist 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A few conflict of interest articles

The articles Frank Popper and Joseph Nechvatal have a conflict of interest going on. Namely, the two were initially substantially edited near the same time, and created by the subject/someone close to the subject. Nechvatal's article has been extensively edited by his daughter (81.57.34.12) and she has also edited Popper's. I'm suspicious about a few things: namely, Nechvatal's critical evaluation appears to have only a positive point of view, and Popper is greatly aggrandized in his article. Can anyone help to sort this out?--Wafulz 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Add Julia Suits. For whatever reason, an editor who appears to be Julia Suits - not the article's creator - wants to keep the article minimalist. Gordonofcartoon 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

project iconç

hi , I propose using this image or some modified version for the project icon, to make it more distingiseable --Andersmusician $ 05:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefered the earlier version of the hand, & don't much like this, nor do I think it makes the icon more distinguishable Johnbod 21:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoart

User:Infoart writes for the Saatchi Gallery web site. He has created many articles on the same artists on wikipedia, initially using the same text (which he says he owns the copyright of) and then paraphrasing it. The text is "art talk" and not suitable for a wikipedia article. One solution is to speedy delete them all as advertising requiring a rewrite. I feel it would be more in wikipedia's interest to keep them and bring them to an acceptable standard, initially by stubbing them. If a consensus of editors feel differently, then we can act accordingly. In the meantime, I've opened this page to co-ordinate efforts:

Infoart articles

Tyrenius 14:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

William Theed

Hi. I have created an article on William Theed (as part of a project on Dunorlan Park where a statue of his was displayed before it was stolen. Just thought you'd like to know as I think it falls under you area of interest! Thanks --McKDandy 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tyrenius 03:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What'd be the convention for naming? This is "William Theed the younger", son of "William Theed the elder". The son is better known, so for the moment I've left him as William Theed and called his father William Theed the elder. Gordonofcartoon 01:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Miguel Calderon notability

The Miguel Calderón article has the notability template on it. I think he's a pretty well known contemporary artist, can somebody take a look? I added some external links but not much beyond that. --AW 16:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? --AW 19:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I have not heard of him. But, I believe you have asserted his notability. I would suggest you cite your sources for the statements you make there. --Kimontalk 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Okey doke --AW 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Now another user is saying the notability is not asserted, because "he needs an individual exhibit at a major art museum." Anyone else care to take a look? --AW 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for works of art?

Copied from: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions Forgive me if this has been brought up before, or if this is covered somewhere else, but I was wondering what conventions should be followed for naming pages for works of art, such as paintings, sculptures, etc.

At this point there doesn't seem to be any set rules for titles of art, with Wikipedians adding in brackets the medium (as in Ship of Fools (painting)), the artist's name ( Adoration of the Magi (Gentile da Fabriano)), the artist's name and the medium (The Kiss (Rodin sculpture)), or the artist's name and in what city the piece currently resides (Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington)) as a disambiguation.

So are there set rules for naming works of art at this point? If not they should probably be put in place. It seems very disorganized this way. -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is probably something to raise at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts first, so I will copy yours & this there, & would suggest the discussion is continued there initially. Personally I think, at least for paintings with common titles, the Title (artist) convention is certainly best, going to Title (artist, city) where the former would not identify the work. It was originally Annunciation (van Eyck), but as I point out on the talk page there, he and his relatives painted about 6 (including one on the Ghent Altarpiece), so I moved it. I wonder if there is only one Adoration of the Magi (Gentile da Fabriano) - there are certainly many Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Rubens)'s, though I think the article covers the most famous. With an unusual title like Ship of Fools (painting) I think this formula is ok, but Nativity (painting) is obviously useless. Johnbod 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So are there set rules for naming works of art at this point? If not they should probably be put in place. It seems very disorganized this way. -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(NB: The following was originally posted on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions) There might be a case for doing away with the medium as disambiguator – doesn't Sunflowers (Van Gogh), after all, sound better than Sunflowers (series of paintings)? The convention that's emerged is to use the format Title (artist), as rightly noted by Johnbod, with Title (artist, city) as second preference. There's no reason for a title like The Kiss (Rodin sculpture) unless it has to be disambiguated from The Kiss (Rodin painting) or some such.
An old way of disambiguating the names of the myriad different Madonna and Childs etc. produced by a single artist was to tack the name of a past owner onto them, e.g. Aldobrandini Madonna, Mond Crucifixion, Benois Madonna and so on. Wherever such titles exist it would be good to use them to relieve the tedium of multiple works with generic titles such as Portrait of a Young Man et al. We might consider changing The Virgin and Child with St Anne and St John the Baptist to the less cumbersome Burlington House Cartoon on this basis. (Note how all the words in this kind of title – Ghent Altarpiece, Borghese Gladiator – are capitalised. I explained here (scroll down) why I think that's desirable, even if it would seem to go against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization).)
Use of the definite article is also worth discussing – why The Flagellation (Piero della Francesca) but Resurrection (Piero della Francesca)? Apologies for not noticing this discussion sooner; I am however very interested in working on an Art Manual of Style. Ham 18:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a slow-moving start to a draft hereWikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style. As it is so early in the process, I would just slap stuff in & wait for a debate to develop. Johnbod 13:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Art templates for deletion/renaming

Resolved

See 4 discussions at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#June_4 -- Tyrenius 14:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

George Hayter

OK article, but needs better referencing than indiscriminate bibliography. Gordonofcartoon 01:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Dunlaps

Resolved

Art-knowledgeable editors would be useful in helping sort out the mess re Bill Dunlap - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Dunlap. Gordonofcartoon 11:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Assessment

Postmodern art. Is the format reasonable? How's the citation density? Does it need more images? What direction should this article go in? Thanks, Vagary 01:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Having worked considerably hard editing this article, I have an opinion, and in my opinion the format is fine, citations can always be added to the many that are there now, no more images, and the factual specifics concerning contemporary art movements like intermedia, performance art, Appropriation art, and Neo-conceptual art, installation art, Institutional Critique, can be deepened. If important textual changes can improve something then add and cite. Thanks, Modernist 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Note, On June 11, the image Sol LeWitt, Four Sided Pyramid, was deleted for copyright reasons it or something similar could be added. Modernist 11:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential ongoing cleanup

Danngala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Annex Galleries). Having been advised on article format and WP:COI guidelines, has proceeded to create another article, Bernard childs, with the same nonstandard format and a COI link. Gordonofcartoon 18:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bernard childs deleted as copyvio. Worth checking any other articles. This is clearly promotional and if it requires rewriting, then it can be speedied under G11. I'll watch this space, or post on my talk page.Tyrenius 01:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Infoart#New_draft_articles

Comment invited at the above location. Tyrenius 16:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bristol Art Library

Interesting, but is it notable? I can't decide. Gordonofcartoon 10:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Borderline, but seems to have got some recognition. I've added EL of BBC site (info needs to be incorporated and used as ref) plus info and ref from University of Exeter. Tyrenius 14:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving /Infoart articles

I've changed the archive box to include /Infoart articles. It was automatic, but now it's manual. If anyone wants to archive talk from this page, just click on the link in the archive box for the right period; then cut and paste talk from this page into the archive page: GFDL is preserved in the history of this page. GFDL for /Infoart articles is preserved in its own history. Tyrenius 00:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pam Pahl

Notable? Gordonofcartoon 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems not! Tyrenius 00:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

John Tunnard

Euw. Help appreciated: a lot of unsourced waffly stuff from way back. Gordonofcartoon 02:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikiepedia_Use_Of_Artistic_Images

Check this out. Tyrenius 01:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting point theoretically - that the GFDL license might deter artists from uploading images because of its requirement to permit "alteration" of images. But I'd like to see a concrete example of how this concern might manifest in a way detrimental to an artist. Gordonofcartoon 02:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If an image is released under GFDL it means anyone in the world can modify it in any way they choose. Here's a hypothetical example: a prominent artist generously uploads a portrait of a world leader. Someone puts a swastika armband on the figure, a Hitler moustache and scribbles on it "world leader is a Nazi" and then uses it on an extremist web site, citing GFDL. The extremist organisation proceeds to use this image in any context they choose and as widely as they want, provided GFDL is cited. Furthermore, the prominent artist's name must continue to be associated with this image as its original author, and the artist cannot do anything about any of this. Such a prospect does not encourage anyone to release images.

Let's suppose Picasso was alive and uploaded his blue period images. Someone decides they should all be colour-changed to red, and that version happens to get picked up and used by other people, who don't even realise there was a blue version. It makes a mockery of the artist's intent, and also of the claimed purpose of spreading knowledge about the artist via an encyclopedia.

Basically any art uploaded under GFDL is reduced to clip art.

Tyrenius 03:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've copied my response to Jimbo's talk page and suggest continuing there as a more prominent forum. Tyrenius 04:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

New articles bot

I just became aware of the existence of User:AlexNewArtBot which produces lists of new articles including specified terms for many projects. Maybe we should be on this? Johnbod 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Possible area for watching. Zeno X Gallery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating a number of articles about artists featured at the Zeno X Gallery (Yun-Fei Ji, Cristof Yvoré, Patrick Van Caeckenbergh, Maria Serebriakova, Jenny Scobel, Mark Manders, John Körmeling, Noritoshi Hirakawa, Kees Goudzwaard, Miriam Cahn so far). They're not bad, but the work descriptions tend to artspeak and some seem a bit borderline in notabiity. I'm posting a mild warning about conflict of interest. Gordonofcartoon 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted a couple as promotional requiring rewrite because of the "artspeak" puffing up the artist. I'll happily undelete if anyone wants to work on them. I have in mind deleting others of a similar nature, but would welcome comments from other editors, and again if anyone wants to work on them, please do so. Tyrenius
I'd put at least the first two up for Afd, though others are clearly okJohnbod 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Yun-Fei Ji is OK (inclusion in Whitney Biennale); agree Cristof Yvoré probably nn; the rest look OK, just about.--Ethicoaestheticist 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note, I wasn't talking about WP:SPEEDY A7 (for non-notable subjects), but G11:

Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well.

There are many cases where galleries or artists themselves create articles to promote an artist. If they're non-notable, they can be speedy-deleted. If they are notable, but need to be "fundamentally rewritten", then they can also be speedy-deleted. A lot of these articles do need to be rewritten, because of PEACOCK language either in terms of an artist's status or in "artspeak" interpretation of the artist's work. Such rewriting creates a lot of work for other editors.

Tyrenius 13:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does, and I think that a speedy may make the original contributor re-do in a more appropriate style -sometimes anyway. Johnbod 13:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I would encourage more use of speedy criterion G11 "promotional requiring rewrite" for artist/gallery articles. Tyrenius 13:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than make the decision unilaterally, I invite other project editors to participate with the following (add more if necessary), commenting for either:

  1. OK
  2. Will undertake rewrite
  3. Speedy delete, A7 (insufficient notability)
  4. Speedy delete, G11 (promotional requiring rewrite)
Articles


  • Maria Serebriakova
    • OKJohnbod 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't feel any of this passage is acceptable: Every work exudes an overwhelming sense of loneliness and despair. She approaches this ‘condition humaine’ (the fate of Man) on a very philosophic and universal manner. Her art can be viewed as a search for her own identity and for the lost distinctiveness of human kind. On a more ontological level Serebriakova views art as a means of communication, superseding language. As a true partisan to Wittgenstein she feels art can express what one cannot describe in words. It's original research, WEASEL wording ("can be viewed"), WP:PEACOCK language ("every work exudes", "true partisan to") and basically the art gallery's promo talk. Tyrenius 01:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • OK-Sort of, I rewrote most of the gallery stuff out. Modernist 02:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm ambivalent, not a lot of exhibitions, Modernist 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
T is right - I mainly looked at the exhibitions. If you take that out there's nothing left, so per above, speedy, or whatever. Notable, potentially, but .... Johnbod 02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've kept this for now, unless anyone has other thoughts. Tyrenius 11:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ho-hum Johnbod 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


OK Johnbod 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Some points of possible wider application are being made in the above discussion. Tyrenius 00:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I voted delete on that because the gallery was very large and only contained titles and dates. If that was allowed the same could be done for every artist, and I think that would create a backlash against galleries. I think more text and informative captions have to be added to make a gallery tenable in the current climate. A huge number of editors seem to think there is a policy against galleries as such, which there isn't. Many think this hypothetical prohibition applies even to small galleries at the end of articles. Nowadays it's asking for trouble to call anything a gallery in the title - just like "Foo...in popular culture". Johnbod 02:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we made the arguments, just the same, win some lose some, the point was made though. Modernist 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Dikeou collection

Resolved Resolved

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Dikeou collection is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 18:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. I think it should go. Modernist 03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspected hoaxes

Resolved Resolved

Please see Maurice J. Stephens and Ruediger Carl and their talk pages. Input welcome. Tyrenius 23:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither appear (in that form) in the Getty Union list of Artists' Names. However slightly to my surprise, Richard Anuszkiewicz (supposed pupil of Carl) does But artists of that date who are not in the Getty list aren't likely to be notable as artists. Johnbod 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I checked out a couple of other dubious names from the articles and they're OK: it's just the article subjects which appear not to be. Tyrenius 00:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's that post-exam period. Off to AfD I think. Johnbod 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah - well spotted! An intra-wiki copyvio even! Johnbod 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles speedy deleted as vandalism. User indef blocked. Tyrenius 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


A note re ULAN: the Getty's list of artists' names, while an admirable project, has many holes and should never be used as the deciding authority. When last I looked the list did not have (among many artists) Bernard Brussel-Smith, one of the major 20thC American wood engravers.Freiherrin (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alasdair Taylor

Could I have opinions re notability? Apart from getting hyped on Alasdair Gray's blog, I can't find much sign of him. Gordonofcartoon 02:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the 2 big quotes, the Arts Council Grant, & the retrospective just bring him in under WP:BIO. Johnbod 02:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with multiple independent sources (that is, lack of). There is an exhbition catalogue.[1] The Scottish Arts Council recognition is helpful. I'll go for keep, but the article needs to be edited. Tyrenius 03:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just did a bit more searching, and there are a couple of problem issues. 1) Given Alasdair Gray's strong reputation, is his blog sufficiently authoritative as a source? 2) There's a conflict of interest: Gray is promoting Taylor's work; and Avril Rennie is a long-standing friend of Taylor (see the comments to Gray's blog post [2]). This is surmountable, but the article currently seems to contain a lot of material that is based on personal knowledge rather than published sources. Gordonofcartoon 11:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Gray's text in the article was apparently published in a catalogue, so I think we can use this safely. Blog? To be used with care, I guess, though I don't think it should be completely excluded. Tyrenius 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
See new discussion on Talk:Alasdair Taylor‎ and continue there. Tyrenius 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I just found a new source: an online Ayrshire arts brochure wth plenty of detail. Hmmm: I still have an obscure feeling that rather than acting on notability criteria, Wikipedia has been coopted into a long-running attempt to create notability for this guy. Gordonofcartoon 13:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
He is certainly being positioned as "famously unknown", a la Vermeer, Grunewald etc once upon a time. But that the Arts Council of S made a grant to sort out his documentation after his death is persuasive. Johnbod 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The long-running attempts have in themselves bestowed a degree of notability. It could go to AfD, but, judging from past results, I think it would pass. Ironically, Gordonofcartoon has done some good sleuthing work to make this even more likely! Tyrenius 00:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind it passing. The Gray saga is QI. I just minded it being based on blatant (and pretty unrepentant) OR and COI. I think we've got enough now to move beyond that. Gordonofcartoon 01:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That's good on all points! Well done on your work there. Tyrenius 01:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Polychronos Lempesis (moved to Polychronis Lembesis)

Any thoughts on this? 5 google hits including wiki, maybe a couple of mirror sites.[3] The creator's contributions indicate it's not a hoax.[4] Can anyone check out the Greek wiki? Tyrenius 03:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ipodamos seems to know a lot about Greek art. Modernist 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I found him on the Greek Wikipedia: Πολυχρόνης Λεμπέσης Unfortunately my Greek is limited to reading the alphabet. But Googling the Greek name finds the English transliteration is Polychronis Lembesis, which is a bit more useful in finding references. Gordonofcartoon 13:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I cross-posted a request to Ipodamos. Incidentally, AGENT 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly enthusiastic, but heading for a block if he/she doesn't stop removing maintenance tags on unsourced material. Gordonofcartoon 11:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Good detective work there. Give AGENT 7 a chance per WP:BITE. Tyrenius 14:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to, but he/she is not taking advice: adding large quantities of unreferenced material in poor English, removing maintenance templates until blocked, twice now, and now coming back as IP sockpuppets to do more of the same. See latest effort at Polychronis Lembesis. Gordonofcartoon 14:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is an important Greek painter of the Munich School. i was planning to make a wikipage for him. There is a Greek one already Ipodamos

COBRA (avant-garde movement)

Interesting batch of artist bios here, many of which need sourcing/expansion. Gordonofcartoon 11:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

To do list for WikiProject Contemporary Art

I've added a to do list for WikiProject Contemporary Art which lists some of the articles already tagged as non-notable, unreferenced etc.--Ethicoaestheticist 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Museumsyndicate.com

This site is a good resource of images and seems to be in line with wiki policies. http://www.museumsyndicate.com/missionstatement.php . Worth considering for External links. Tyrenius 02:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sam Dodwell

Anyone know anything about him? I'm struggling with finding notability and independent sources: just a couple of gallery profiles, and a Western Daily Press piece that clearly came straight from the same source (as, I suspect, did the whole article and bundle of images). Gordonofcartoon 02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Only 50 google hits including wiki and mirrors, and nothing of great note.[5] Not quite a speedy, but probably suitable for AfD. He seems to have recognition as a member of various societies, but that on its own is not enough. Tyrenius 18:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ralfonso – Ralf Gschwend

Resolved

I'd like some evaluation of this. Only about 40 google hits. Tyrenius 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Tricky - he is different anyway. I get 13,700 ghits for Ralfonso, perhaps a hundred apparently mostly about him, but low-grade - you-tube etc. Lots in German. No great critical appraisals I can see. Johnbod 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • My initial impression was he's not notable as a conceptual artist, - to me anyway, but somehow viable and possibly notable in theoretical Kinetic sculpture design, - if that exists, maybe in context with Kinetic sculpture. Modernist 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Ralfonso-Ralf Gschwend" 3 google hits.[6] "Ralfonso Gschwend" (a duplicate article, which I deleted, was posted with this title) 13 google hits.[7] There are claims in the article, but not verified. Tyrenius 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, certainly not a household word, Alexander Calder he isn't, the question is shall the editor of the article be pressed for more notability then can be provided or is this article meeting the bare minimum. My initial take was it's on the borderline. I agree that he doesn't fit on the lists of notables. Modernist 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If it was up for deletion I'd go with weak keep. In my opinion, the most significant source (not stated in the article) is this [8], but notability would depend on whether this is an official Olympic contest or not, and if so, how many reached the finalist stage. By the way, on Google I'm getting 584 hits for "Ralfonso Gschwend"[9] and 356 for "Ralf Gschwend"[10]. --Ethicoaestheticist 23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The big number is just for "Ralfonso" - obviously not all about him, but more than 16 certainly. But he also uses "Ralf Gschwend", which gets 364, again mostly low quality. I haven't explored very far. [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I'm new here and posted the Ralfonso article, who knew it was a tough crowd for writing an article about an artist I admire. I'm still learning about references and the like. Hopefully my current fixes can remove the 'tag'. Auteurdevie 12:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Aesthetics

An aesthetics task force has been set up at WikiProject Philosophy which might benefit from WikiProject Visual Arts input, or vice versa.--Ethicoaestheticist 21:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I know it sounds like a Monty Python sketch, but best of luck. Art needs a look over. Johnbod 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been raised on the article's talk page and after back and forth between myself and Dsmdgold with no consensus, at his suggestion I am bringing it to your attention for comments. If interested members of this wikiproject could add their input there, that would be appreciated. Please note that this is not an RFC, but as I just noticed that, this could be referred there too. Thanks. BrokenSphereMsg me 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Archives of American Art

The other day a new editor added a lot of links from the Archives of American Art to articles related to American visual artists. An administrator blocked him, and deleted all of them and a controversy ensued. A few editors including me protested - saying the links to the Archives of American art were not spam. Another administrator unblocked him. I restored all the links. Please weigh in here: [12] and there is more information here : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fwww.aaa.si.edu
and Aaa intern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
If you have an opinion, it will be appreciated. Thanks, Modernist 10:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've posted on AN/I and WikiProject Spam. Tyrenius 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with User:Modernist. The links enrich the articles by connecting them to an unimpeachable, public, institutional, non-commercial, and thoroughly accredited source. Regardless of the fact that the links may have been added by some automatic means, they should remain, as welcome and legitimate sources of information. MdArtLover 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template standardisation

Those visually inclined might like to check out the above and its talk page. Tyrenius 07:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Lack

Had to share this: I was fascinated to find that Stephen Lack from Scanners is a successful artist. Gordonofcartoon 04:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephen is well known as a painter. From the days when Gracie Mansion was his dealer during the 1980s. Modernist 23:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Coleman

Could someone check out this article? I'm not sufficiently au fait with art copyright to judge, but "self-promotional, experimental or exhibition work" looks iffy as a justification for image use. COI issues too. Gordonofcartoon 11:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC) User: Sarah Coleman. Please note the images are created by me since I'm a professional illustrator by trade (and thus well-versed in copyright law), so had no worries about putting them online. However, since you alerted me to the possibility that a handful of other web users may not have honourable intentions, I've decided not to bother including images at all. There are plenty of images on the web if people want to see them! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah J Coleman aka Inkymole, Illustrator (talk • contribs) 01:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Request For Assessment - SAIC

Could somebody please assess The School of the Art Institute of Chicago? --76.214.201.26 08:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Frida Kahlo

There is an out of control editor - an art expert - on Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera who apparently knows better than all, - 70.18.5.219 (Talk), and I am at the edge of the 3RR's and I can't really continue without violating that rule, he's left a message on the talk page that is fairly over the top. [13] Give a look, much appreciated. Modernist 23:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sofonisba Anguissola

Sorry if I didn't post this correctly - I apologise for my incorrect English - it's not my native language. I have a question about the article about Sofonisba Anguissola. She was the oldest daughter of a Cremonese nobleman - and she had five sisters and one brother. In the article it is said that her mother died when she was four or five. Was her mother pregnant all the time, or are her siblings twins? Or did her father marry another woman? Sincerely Lena Kronberg - Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.198.40 (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Her sisters are between 8 & 25 years younger than her, so must be from at least one other wife. Johnbod 03:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I wish I could find out something more about that, and abut a drawing that she made c 1554 - with a boy bitten by a crawfish. I've heard that the boy is supposed to be her brother Asdrubale. But sometimes I can read that it is her son Asdrubale. I didn't thought she had any children. She was too old to have any when she married. Sincerely Lena Kronberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.193.65 (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

askart.com

Noone at WP:WRE seems to have access to askart.com, so I was wondering if any of you do. I'm going to write an article about Fermin Rocker, so it would be cool if someonce could send me his biography at askart by e-mail.--Carabinieri 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Max Ernst

All the images have been deleted from the article in the last few days. Initially the gallery was deleted and then when I included them in the article proper, they were deleted again. I've reverted the revert. I am of the opinion that articles about Visual Artists require images, especially when all the Fair Use Rationales are correct, valid and in place. I am also of the opinion that these policies can be interpreted in many different ways and they are often interpreted counter to the understanding of visual arts editors when it comes to illustrating articles. People might weigh in with their opinions on Talk:Max Ernst. - Modernist 13:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

to anyone with an interest in how the practice of photo editing is portrayed

There is a small group of article manipulators who seem to think that photo manipulation better describes photo editing than image editing. I don't have to tell you the negative implications that are associated with the word manipulation. By directing the term "photo editing" to that article, it implies that every form of photo editing is a form of manipulation. So if you don't want to feel guilty for using photoshop, I encourage you to join the debate. Oicumayberight 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I've just suggested a merge of Art extraordinary into Outsider Art, as it's largely duplicated material. Any thoughts? See Talk:Outsider Art#Merger proposal. Gordonofcartoon 11:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lorado Taft

The article on this important sculptor is something of a mess. I have tagged it but am currently dedicating my time to expanding several related articles, including Eagle's Nest Art Colony, Lowden State Park and Black Hawk Statue. Any help at least fixing the bad structure of the Taft article would be great. As is the article is mostly an image gallery as opposed to an encyclopedia article. Thanks. IvoShandor 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Arts genres by country or nationality

I have a categorization question I'd like to discuss over at Category_talk:Arts_genres_by_country_or_nationality. Thanks! Clubmarx (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use for contemporary art

I was wondering if someone knew if it's possible to use an image made by a contemporary artist (scanned from a book, picture taken at a gallery, etc), because i find that there are too many article's without images, and i can't seem to find any image (with less than 30 years old) properly tagged. Some examples of articles that deserve at least one image would be David Shrigley, Gilbert and George, Pierre et Gilles, Stephen Shore, etc. Is it really the only thing we can use book covers? like in David LaChapelle? -Yamanbaiia (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can, but you have to include a specific fair use rationale justifying it on the image page. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and [[14]]. You have to include a link to the article where the image is used, and details of the source (link if the source is online) and copyright owner, usually the artist, though there may be an additional copyright owner for a photo of a 3-D work. You can't use a book cover, unless the book is specifically alluded to in the text. Tyrenius (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dana E. Levin

Editor help requested here. Tyrenius 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out also The New School of Classical Art, funnily enough run by Dana E. Levin. BTW its content all comes verbatim from www.danalevin.com - so either copyvio or inside job. I've cross-posted both to WP:COI/N. I'd deal with it myself, but it's late here and I'm turning in. Gordonofcartoon 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Good move on the copyvio notice. Tyrenius 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We get waves of this every few months, also spam links to the school site quite well spread around (last time anyway). I think you'll see the user name rather gave the game away before. Johnbod 22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Max Kahn

Can anyone find references to the 20th century artist Max Kahn--in particular, to his lithographs being in the museums mentioned? the article has been challenged. DGG (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

He existed anyway - this is the place to look for things like that [15] MoMA don't list any prints online, but it's not clear if they are complete online. I'm not sure prints being owned by them would make him notable by itself. Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

References added for works in the collections of Illinois State Museum, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco and the National Gallery of Canada.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Reference for Max Kahn (b. 1904); (b. 1903) can be found in the following books:
  • James Watrous, American Printmaking: a century of American printmaking, 1880-1980, (Madison, Wis. : University of Wisconsin Press, 1984.)ISBN 0299096807 9780299096809 Chapter 6, Printmaking in the 1950s, p.183.

Max Kahn was a fine lithographer and master-printer from Chicago. In 1939 he was a visiting instructor at the John Herron Art Institute in Indianapolis, IN.

  • Who was Who in American Art 1564-1975, 400 Years of Artists in America, Vol. II:G-O (Sound View Press, An Affiliate of Institute for Art Research & Documentation A Non-Profit Arts Educational Organization, 1999.) p.1780. Max Kahn (Litographer, painter, sculptor, teacher) b. 1903, Russia.

Exhibited:

I hope these references will be helpful. Sincerely, (Salmon1 (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)) (Salmon1 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

The above information was added to the article: Max Kahn (Salmon1 (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Image Sizing

Comment on above - (Was it Bob Dylan who said "Keep a good head and always carry a light bulb")? Modernist (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There are differing opinions as to how images should be sized in articles. User:Cacophony has altered the formats of the images so as to make them so small that details cannot be easily seen, he has reverted my reverts of his format changes. I'd like a consensus concerning format and image size from several different editors. I'd appreciate any input from other editors particularly concerning these articles: Rene Magritte, Claude Monet, Paul Cezanne, Edouard Manet, Edgar Degas, and Diego Velazquez. Thanks - Modernist (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style and let users decide for themselves what sizing they prefer. If you have a small screen, then you shouldn't be forceed to view large thumbnails. Likewise, if you have a very large monitor, you shouldn't be forced to view tiny thumbnails. This is the reason that preferred thumbnail sizing was developed, so that users have a choice. And choice is a wonderful thing. What looks good on one person's 30" monitor looks like crap at 800x600 or if you have a visual impairment and set your preferences to display larger text. All things being equal, let the user decide for themselves. Cacophony (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So far the only pages where Cacophony's new format works relatively ok are Jasper Johns and Toulouse Lautrec. Wassily Kandinsky and Robert Rauschenberg doesn't work because the abstract paintings need to be larger to be understood visually. Until consensus is reached this editor should cease changing the visual arts articles. Modernist (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if the enlargements to which we are referring really do look overwhelming on a small screen; they are proportionate on the screens I can access. Though WP:MOS#Images is surely a sensible guideline, it does not specifically address works of art, which just might require different strictures, being especially relevant to the content of these articles. So long as they are not big enough to overwhelm the text, there is a fairly compelling rationale for seeing the images of many of these paintings on a larger scale. They look good, and provide a necessary complement to the written content. Seen in small format as per the guideline, their most vital color and graphic characteristics are often compromised. Incidentally, the guideline does specify that lead images could reasonably be of larger format. For these articles, it makes visual sense to extend such an exception to the embedded artwork as well. JNW (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This really might merit further discussion. Guidelines encourage that images not be stacked atop each other. In the cause of interesting formatting, it would not require a great leap to justify variations of image sizes, as well. JNW (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
An MOS guideline is not a policy, and as such (quoting here) is "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense". While the guideline on image sizing says that "specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not recommended", this is pretty mild language, and it is followed by some examples of exceptions; it is nowhere implied that the examples given are the only exceptions allowed. Images of works of art that appear in articles about the visual arts would seem to fall into the category of common-sense exceptions. The enlarged images in these articles cause no problems on my 15" monitor. The overwhelming majority of WP readers are not logged in & have no preferences set; probably most of us who are logged in don't have image scale preferences set. Those with impaired vision may experience a slightly less satisfactory display of the text, but they may also appreciate the greater legibility of the images, which (let's remember) are central to the visual arts articles in a way that they are not to articles about politicians or holidays. Ewulp (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It is actually policy that images should normally be thumbnail per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size. This is often ignored. On the other hand, there has in the past been extensive discussion about changing this policy and it has been retained, so it does have weight. I have to go on the side of thumbnails. They give a basic impression and it's easy enough to click on them for the full size image. I find articles aesthetically more attractive with smaller images - and you can get more of them in the article. Tyrenius (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no contradiction here; if you go to Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size the first thing you see is, "See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images for further guidelines", which are as noted not set in stone. Next line: "In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option" (emphasis added). My point is that this policy allows for much discretion; it only remains to be decided if works of art are less exceptional cases than maps, charts, lead images that capture the essence of the article, etc.. Ewulp (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While smaller images certainly have an aesthetic appeal, and galleries are important assets to pages about artists, I think there are certain important assets to having larger images too. Las Meninas and all the complex detail in the painting for example, is benefitted by being larger, or a compellingly expressive painting like Absinthe, by Degas or historically important paintings like Manet's Luncheon on the Grass, need to be seen larger than thumbnail size if only to be studied in more detail. Modernist (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think they should be larger so that they can been seen, then we are in total agreement because that is exactly why I changed them. The vast majority of forced thumb sizes that I have removed are for those that are smaller than 300px (which is my default). If the argument is that the user needs larger thumbnails to appreciate and understand the subject matter, they shouldn't be forced to be *smaller* than my default. If there is an image that is particularly important, then enlarge it to 350-550px, but that dosen't mean that every single image on a page should be that size. Cacophony (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I do agree that certain compellingly important images should be larger and other more ordinary paintings as examples can be of a differing size. We don't disagree there. However your adjustments tend to make every image smaller. At least thats what I see - at Robert Rauschenberg for example. Modernist (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You can change your preference settings! I agree for larger images where detail needs to be seen, if that detail is actually discussed sufficiently in the text. The policy I've referred to clearly states, "In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option", and refers to MOS for "further options". Policy is the cornerstone, but we agree there is discretion where needed, so it's just a question of when to apply it. I think it would be easier to look at some cases as they occur at this stage, rather than trying to get some theoretical blanket ruling. Tyrenius (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
If user preferences are the determinant of image size, then all the images on a page will display at the same size (unless forced to a scale over 300px). This is not desirable when comparing works of art of greatly different scales; on the Manet page, isn't it disturbing for Olympia to display the same size as Portrait of Berthe Morisot? The edit by Modernist varies the image scale in a way that benefits the most users (and is aesthetically pleasing for all users). Again, most users are not logged in, many do not have huge monitors on which 550px images recommended by Cacophany will work well within the text. Ewulp (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You can go to Special:Preferences, under the Files tab, and change your thumbnail display preferences. If you prefer larger images then you should set it to 250 or 300px. As for a blanket rule, the MoS section is fairly clear, default thumbs should be used in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise. Compelling reasons being: Images with extreme aspect ratios, detailed maps, diagrams or charts, a lead image that captures the essence of the article (recommended not to be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences). I think those qualifiers pretty much sum up the concerns. Cacophony (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Olympia vs. Berthe Morisot, this is where the upright thumb comes into play. An image that is much taller than it is wide should use |thumb|upright| so that the default image size is used for the height rather than the width. Cacophony (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. Compelling reason #1 the spirit of Wikipedia, and when it counts - WP:IAR, Compelling reason #2 WP:UCS, in articles about the visual arts images cannot all be the same size, we've just established that. When I work on articles with images I use differing px sizes as that makes the most sense. The mechanical attitude doesn't work with art and aesthetics. Modernist (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I was looking at (seen here[[16]]. The result is not good IMHO. Ewulp (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is unacceptable. [17]] thats why we are here. Modernist (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, on the Manet page are a number of paintings meriting enlargement (Olympia, Luncheon, Maximillian, Bar at the Follies), as a means of underscoring both the works' scale and historical importance, all the more so when the notability is explained in the text. JNW (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I never said that all images should all be the same size, I'm saying that in the absence of a compelling reason not to, we should use default thumbnail sizing. I think a compelling reason can be found for a few images on each article, but I don't think one can be found that applies to to every single image of every single article of an entire category of articles. We need to provide the end user with the most amount of latitude to adjust their experience based on the equipment they are using. If there are layout issues that are particular to one article, then lets take it up there, but please understand the importance of user preferences. Cacophony (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Along the same lines, I made a few changes to galleries that were promptly reverted (for example here). The default gallery size of 140px is absolutely tiny when looking at a work of art. I changed them to 200px and increased the width to 4 (<gallery widths ="200px" perrow="4" >). It is slightly too large for 800x600 users, but I think the results are tolerable at that resolution and it greatly increases the value for those with larger monitors. Thoughts? Cacophony (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
See summation section below. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not read any of this discussion beyond the topic line. Please don't mess with people's preferences. You who wrote "It is slightly too large for 800x600 users" don't know what they are in my humble opinion. Sorry I probably won't get back to this thread and won't have time to answer questions about this comment (it is an old, old, old topic and changes can't be resolved in Wikipedia—it can only be "resolved", i.e. "changed", by talking to the developers of MediaWiki). -Susanlesch (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I must admit I set sizes less than I used to, I generally agree with the writing editors above - surely the great majority of readers don't have preferences set, or any knowledge that they can. The results of thumb sizing can be very odd indeed with tall thin images (because the size is taken from the horizontal axis) and often have to be overridden. Also, when images are being compared the size may need forcing - look at Amanda's Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes. I must admit I was unaware of some of the points above though - changing sizing to vertical & in galleries etc. I will alert Amanda to this discussion, as I know she has very strong views on this. I can't help noticing that User:Cacophony (the user page) displays really badly on my pc - I have to scroll right to see 30% of the page! In Velasquez, I think Modernist's version certainly looks better - I have tried it at a couple of different preference settings. I would also have reverted the Manet gallery change [here , as it takes them off the edge of my screen, and these changes don't change the size of the actual pictures, just the space of each box - pointless, except for the captions. People might look at my sandbox here, where I have repeated a gallery row at different settings - I would be interested to here how they look to different people on different machines. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely great demonstration Johnbod [18]. I also have the same problem looking at User:Cacophony's user page, which runs off my screen. I'd rather not go to the extra complexities of setting preferences which change anyway with every computer you access.Modernist (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you all actually see the images as different sizes in Johnbod's demo? They are all 120px wide for me, just spaced differently. As an ex-technical writer, I am hopelessly tuned to making a hierarchy of image sizes according to their importance in the text. I do a lot of work in fashion articles, which have many images. I strive for visual balance, which means that images of comparative importance should have comparative "weight" (and t if they have radically different proportions, I will size them so the overall area of the image feels right). My usual habit is to size lead images at 250-300px, subsidiary images at 150-200, and tertiary images in galleries. If I want to discuss a detail of a picture, I'll make a crop that highlights the detail at 150-200px wide and add it to the article. (Example here, where the close-up of slashing and trim in "General Trends" is a detail of an image in a gallery farther down the page. This is also a case where I had a very wide, short image and did some atypical sizing.) - PKM (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
All my demo images are the same size for me too - do they change for anyone else? Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Same size, different spacing. JNW (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitary break

I have written several generic articles on art and architecture. I find that in an article that discusses a string of different points, then the thumbnail format for in-text pics is generally adequate. see Gothic architecture. I have also made extensive use of galleries when making brief reference to a very large number of works. See Stained glass. However, for any detailed discussion of the features of a particular work of art or architecture, these formats are quite inadequate. The person reading the text needs to be able to see the features that one is writing about, without having to open a separate screen at WikiCommons and flick between the two. Reducing the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper to thumbnails in a description of Leonardo da Vinci's greatest works is inappropriate. I attempt to utilise a method that respects the size of an artwork, relative to others reproduced near it, the amount of detail within the artwork that is significant within the context of the article, the placement on the page, and the way it is going to look on screens of various proportions. (I change the proportion of my screen to check this out.)
While some editors of Art articles also have art expertise themselves and take layout into account, many others do not, to the extent of inserting pics or boxes into places where they disrupt text or simply don't fit. While I realise that setting standards is important for setting quality, I cannot see that reducing to thumbnails things that have their life solely as visual objects serves the purpose of presenting Art in an encyclopedia. Neither do I think that the solution of simply producing a larger format for paintings etc is an answer. I think it requires flexibility, a good knowledge of the subject so that the pics really complement the written material, and dare I say, (like most of Wikipedia) creative expertise. Amandajm (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Further to this, there is a presumption among those experienced and highly competent editors that recommend letting every user choose the size of the pics from the option available, that yer average wiki user actually knows how to change the size, knows that they can change the size, and, in their search for info to write a school project, they have the time to fiddle around. Basically, there may be an option, but I, for one, have never used it, and I'm a fairly experienced editor. It's there for the techno-competent. Amandajm (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply following the Manual of Style guidelines and official Wikipedia policy, which I think are pretty clear. If you all don't agree with them, then this is hardly the place to make a change. "Yer average" editor probably has not read the MoS or policies and guidelines, does that mean we should abandon them? Cacophony (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, clearly these Manual of Style guidelines state: However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, ensure that your revision reflects consensus. that editors use WP:UCS in particular to the sizing and placement of works of art is essential. And what we are doing here is trying to establish a clear consensus. I take exception to Cacophony's subjective interpretation of the guidelines. For the record my current preference settings are 800x600px and 180px thumbnail size. Modernist (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
For the first time ever I altered my preferences for thumbs to come up at 300px. They looked very impressive. The trouble is that where there was a forced image size, say 250px. When default thumb renders images at 180px, the 250px images look big. When you set preferences at 300px, the 250px images still render at the forced size and then look small. I found this frustrating, and therefore another reason to stick to default thumb, unless a good reason to the contrary in specific cases. Tyrenius (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think what we are seeing is that people should be more cautious at forcing images to below 300, as this will make them smaller for (the probably rather few) people with this as their default setting. But the guidelines, which clearly did not give much if any specific consideration to art articles, allow for especially important images to be forced. Cacophany says that most of the forced sizes he removes are below 300, but looking at his edits to Manet, this was not the case - all forced sizes were removed indiscriminately, and the majority -5 - were in fact set at 300. In René Magritte all 3 non-gallery images were at 300. Also some right/left placings are removed, rather against MOS principles. It is hard to see how these sorts of edits, performed en masse and without discussion, can be justified under the policy. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've also experimented with 300px as my thumb preference and it is ok for thumbs but little else. I prefer the 180px preference if for no other reason than that most users are using 180px. If we design and write articles, I think we should keep most users in mind. I'm also of the opinion that the Visual Arts project should determine our own design guidelines as have other projects: [19] like this one. As Visual arts editors with thousands of edits and experience working on these articles our guidelines should be determined by a consensus of visual arts editors. Modernist (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
For those who don't know it we have this:Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, which has not gor very far. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been asked to chime in here. I post many images and many of the pages I have created use many images. I work on a 1680x1050 and would like to work on a bigger screen if possible. However, I have been informed that I should layout my images so that they are friendly to a 1024x768 resolution. I do not follow any guidelines on this matter other than what looks palatable. I think the first six pages mentioned above look good at this moment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"that is with Cacophany's changes reverted (except maybe in the case of Degas). Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the images presented in the article Lyrical Abstraction. The article summarizes the problems that arise with lack of image standardization. Maybe it is appropriate to quote Spinoza[1] Happiness is not the reward of virtue, but is virtue itself; nor do we delight in happiness because we restrain our lust; but, on the contrary, because we delight in it, therefore are we able to restrain them. I believe Wikipedia is still the best source of information for a great number of people. Beauty and truth do not need large format to survive. Sincerely, (Salmon1 (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

  1. ^ Erich Fromm, ‘’Man for Himself, An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics,’’ (New York, Reinehart, 1947.) OCLC: 268056. Spinoza, Ethic p.176
How does that work? There are two non-gallery images there, the top one unforced, and the lower at 490px. You seem to object to everything about this article & have filled the talk-page with your complaints, but I don't think you have mentioned image size there. In general I think discussions of image sizes get on fine without Spinoza. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to repeat myself.
  1. Does the ordinary, non-contributing wikipedia public know about changing their options?
  2. Are we writing for experienced wikipedia contributors or for the whole world? I don't really care if the options are not quite right for those smart people who know how to change them. I'd rather that the pics looked good for the millions of people out there who don't know how to change their options!
  3. Does wikipedia make allowance for "common sense" choices and "exceptions" or doesn't it? If so, isn't it common sense that some visual images may require to be treated differently to others?
I find it really quite offensive that people are trying to enforce a rule which is a "non-rule" because allowances have wisely been written into it. While I agree with Guidelines, the pedantic pushing of a rule that doesn't work effectively in a given context seems foolish. The context discussed here is the delivery of encyclopedic knowledge of the subject of art to a world-wide public. The reason that you know that the rule doesn't work is that the editors of major art articles say that it doesn't and continually work against it. It's not ignorance of the rule, arrogance or bloody-mindedness. It's experience. It's the result of several lifetimes of working with, looking at, teaching and/or writing about, and/or designing and creating art objects, and in my case specifically, delivering knowledge about art objects through all these methods to a very wide public.
  • If this media isn't suited to the material that it is seeking to transmit, then it needs to change the rules about how it's done. but, in fact, as I have already pointed out, the rules are open-ended.
  • An important aspect of Wikipedia is growth. This doesn't just mean in "size". It also means in quality. To do the latter, the structures and rules need to have built-in flexibility (which they have) or a system of review and structured change. Amandajm (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Way forward?' I think it is good for all of us (including Cacophany with his user page that none of us can see properly) to be reminded that things look very different to those with different screens, and different settings. Even those of us who had changed our settings very rarely alter them & can easily forget how things look to others. In particular I think we should think more before forcing images to a figure below 300px, as this will actually make them look smaller to some people, which is probably the opposite of what we intend. Equally Cacophany should accept that his claim that "The vast majority of forced thumb sizes that I have removed are for those that are smaller than 300px" (above) is not borne out by the examples we are looking at here, where he has removed very many of these. The MoS is clear that "a lead image that captures the essence of the article" is an exception to the usual position, but he has removed setting of 300px from several of these. Nor has he shown sensitivity to what are the key works in an artist's oeuvre, nor to how crowded the compositions are - something also excluded as "detailed maps, diagrams or charts" I would say (or rather it should be). Since the MoS has pretty clearly been written entirely without any thought of visual arts articles, I would suggest some of us try to draft some (small) amendments to get art article issues included there, & then bring it back here for discussion. Does this sound sensible? Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it does, and that is very much what I had in mind earlier in this thread, when I wrote Though WP:MOS#Images is surely a sensible guideline, it does not specifically address works of art, which just might require different strictures. That said, I must confess that I am completely ignorant regarding the technical applications of this discussion, of pixels and screen sizes. But I fully support Johnbod's proposal for thoughtful and limited amendments which will encourage flexibility regarding the use of images in art-based entries. JNW (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the idea that the Visual Arts project should begin to develop input to a WP:MoS that pertains to visual art articles. We might also consider including some ideas that pertain to galleries, images, descriptive captions and image rationales as well. If someone can draft a proposal to the idea of amending some MoS visual arts issues as Johnbod suggests, that sounds like a good start. Modernist (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Our own MoS draft is linked to again below; that should eventually cover all topics, & anyone should please add to it as it does not move along much. But I think we should draft some small amendments to the Images bit of the main one, setting out art-relevant exceptions to the usual guidelines. For example "detailed maps, diagrams or charts" are given as a reason for forcing images, but not large and complex paintings. Johnbod (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Visual arts Draft MoS

Is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, which has not got very far. Please add. Johnbod (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cacophany asked for "thoughts" above. There are now many comments above and at my "demo" on this; it doesn't change the actual image size, so is essentially pointless, and the possible benefits (of layout only) to a few with big screens are surely outweighed by most not being able to see a whole row, even at 160, never mind 200. Or are we all missing something? Johnbod 14:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think we were, as I happened to choose a row with 4 "portrait" format pics. "Landscape" format ones do increase in size - I have now added a second row to the "demo". To me they increase up to 160?, but the pics at 250 don't increase proportionately. But given the comments there, I am dubious it is a good idea to force these, certainly to over 150 - even at 150 many people have to scroll, never mind 200. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the sizing of galleries, you can manually set the size of the images in the gallery, not just the spacing between them. This is explained at m:Help:Images. The code is <gallery caption="Sample gallery" widths="100px" heights="100px" perrow="6">. You don't have to set both the height and width, and perrow determines how many images per row are displayed. In some cases a gallery caption would work better than a section heading. Cacophony (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Boy, what a useless Help page! But you weren't doing that with your changes, which just changed the spacing. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
An example of a modified gallery can be seen here:[20] created by TonyTheTiger. I really think we should determine Visual arts guidelines amongst visual arts editors. While Cacophony is a fine editor I'd appreciate with all due respect his not reverting anymore visual arts articles. Modernist (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Art therapy

I'm clearing a backlog of stub assessments for WikiProject Medicine, and I ran across an article on Gugging. It seemed to me that it ought to have a category to link it to visual arts, but I didn't know which one. So I went to Art therapy, thinking that I would find something appropriate there. However, that article is also missing any connection to art. Can someone here, who knows way more about this than I do, please add an appropriate category to these two articles? I'd really appreciate your help. 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatamIdoing (talk • contribs)

There's a category Category:Martial arts therapy. There needs to be Category:Art therapy. Tyrenius (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Middle Ages

Format changes here at the intro to:Middle Ages by FrankB seem awkward, I think input from other editors might be useful. Although they were quickly reverted, just now. Modernist (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be to do with his proposal here, where you can tell him what you think about it. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Milovan Destil Marković

Moved here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts#Milovan Destil Marković: B.stegmayer (talk · contribs) has recently created the article Milovan Destil Marković. I've had a discussion with him/her about the lead section of the article, at User talk:B.stegmayer#Milovan Destil Marković and User talk:Aecis#Your request about a change to the Page on Milovan Destil Marković. The lead section of the article contains a number of terms that may be difficult to understand for readers who are not well versed in art terminology. An example: "In his recent work Marković investigates the possibilities and challenges as well as the limits of visual representation in general, but is primarily concerned with the role of the close-up. Marković draws attention to the politics of representation involved in the production of visibility and invisibility of the human face (propaganda or commercial advertisement versus the making invisible and removal from public awareness). Both of these productions are socially conditioned and socially performed. Moreover, as often as not, they are produced in/by public space, where the “ideal face” may be used for fulfilling ideological, propaganda or market purposes." (italics added for emphasis) This reads like a museum brochure. I'm not very well versed in these terms, so I would like to ask the members of this WikiProject to assist in making this article accessible to lay readers. Note: this is not a dispute. AecisBrievenbus 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I changed the article (by moving the section in question) and hope that it is now clearer. B.stegmayer (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Heavy lifting

(From MoS sub-page) I'm doing some heavy lifting at Western Painting because of the {non-free} tags there and on Self-portrait and History of painting placed by the image hunters....There is a little banter on Talk:Western painting When I finish western painting I'll remove the tags, and start on the other two articles. Any thoughts? Modernist (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I see T has stepped in, much better than I could. Is it really the case that there is a policy saying caption text does not count? Personally I think (as you know) galleries are better with longer informative captions & I see no reason at all (rather the reverse) why this should be less privileged. I'll ask him there. I'm copying this to the main Project talk page if that's ok. - let's continue there. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-Free images in Galleries

I am proposing to post the following at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, but thought I would ask comments here first:

At the moment Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images begins:

Unacceptable images

The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and if it fails this test such use is unacceptable.

- This fairly clearly is intended to refer to the now nearly extinct "gallery articles" rather than internal galleries in normal articles. The policy should be amended to make this clear. My proposed revision:

Unacceptable images

The use of non-free media in lists, gallery articles (but not galleries within articles), discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and if it fails this test such use is unacceptable.

-Galleries within articles are frequently used in overview Visual arts articles, where many images are needed, often accompanied by lengthy captions. There would appear to be no reason why this arrangement of text and images should be treated differently from others. Examples:Nativity of Jesus in art, Self-portrait, Halo (religious iconography).

Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

That won't pass, as "galleries" is intended to refer to galleries within articles, not just articles composed entirely of galleries. This came up regarding sports logos at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2. However, see the message from Kat Walsh on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kat Walsh's statement. The relevant portion states:
Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.
Note also WP:NFCC#8 states:
Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
Template:Non-free 2D art states the legitimacy of non-free images for:
  • critical commentary on
  • the work in question,
  • the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
  • the school to which the artist belongs
I believe this is strong enough to at least add something to the paragraph in question above, along the lines of:
Certain visual arts articles may merit inclusion of images in galleries.
Tyrenius (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_galleries:
Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis). See Wikipedia:Fair use for more details.
I don't think that it is correct to state that in the policy, as a gallery can in certain circumstances be appropriate for proper use. The policy does not accommodate all the usages specified on Template:Non-free 2D art. Tyrenius (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm indeed! Thanks for the references. Some comments:
  1. I'm not sure the Kelly Martin references are decisive, though clearly they have a bearing - after all he was trying to introduce a new policy:"At the time, however I believed there had been enough discussion, and that it was time to make a declaration of my intent to enforce what amounts to existing policy by creating a new, specific policy: that galleries of unlicensed team logos are not acceptable on league or conference article pages, and to put everyone involved on warning that reverting any edit removing such galleries is a blockable offense.."

It's very hard to see what Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_galleries is saying - it uses the word "galleries" very loosely. Also most of the article examples would appear to have altered considerably since it was written. In purely legal terms it is hard to image that being in a gallery or not has any implications whatsoever per se. I note Bearcat's hardline take on this lower down in the Kelly Martin thing attracted little support, and 2/9 of those supporting it specifically disagreed with the statements as to the US legal position there. How about:

"The use of gallery formatting does not in itself rule out the inclusion of fair-use images, if the normal criteria are met. Certain articles, for example in the visual arts may merit inclusion of images in galleries, where many images are required by the nature of the article."

Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The basic argument and definition about what constitutes acceptable images seems to shore up the contention that Visual arts articles need to use visual art material as illustrations in both galleries and articles. There are these:WP:NFC section 2.3. acceptable images and this WP:WPFU, which seems to open the door that the use of visual art - images of relatively recent paintings, prints, photos, sculptures and other works are crucial to visual arts articles especially concerning the art of the 20th century. Clearly fair use rationales are defined as necessary, however I do not see any specific distinction between say a painting used in an article and the same painting used in a gallery in a different article.

Case in point: Persistence of Memory by Salvador Dali which is used in the article Surrealism as it should be because it's an important work, and it is used in a gallery on History of painting as it should be for the same reason because it is an important historical work. I think there seems to be room for discussion, and for different interpretation. A comment on the differences between Team Logos and distinct works of art by artists is also important. If we are discussing Pablo Picasso's response to the bombing of Guernica and we are illustrating that particular section we don't use for an illustration Picasso's Three Musicians whereas with the New York Yankees there is only one logo that suits all and gets the point across. It isn't spelled out clearly and maybe that is why there is still room for interpretation. Modernist (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Also that one knows the Miami Dolphins will have a logo, and actually seeing that logo will not increase the readers understanding in any very real sense, whereas without seeing images it is impossible to understand virtually any topic to do with art - just saying so & so painted in a Foo style doesn't cut it. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree, the Visual arts project needs to begin to define its own guidelines concerning images. Modernist (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree also. It's just a question of getting that acknowledged by a wider consensus. However, the term "gallery" means basically the use of the gallery template, i.e. several (usually 4 or more) images in a row, as opposed to putting the images individually into the article. I think following the Kelly Martin (she, by the way) RfC, team logos in galleries were not allowed. Tyrenius (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if we push on with our MoS & get that agreed within the project, it will provide a suitable base to start push for the wider concensus? Johnbod (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I definitely think fleshing out the galleries section at the MoS here: [21] will help strengthen the case and shore up the need for the use of multiple image galleries in certain visual arts articles, including some images from the 20th century with fair use rationales. Modernist (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Las Meninas up for Featured Article

People might want to take a look. Happy holidays to all! Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Really well done, congratulations to Ceoil, Johnbod, JNW, Amandajm, Qp10qp, and SandyGeorgia and everyone else who pitched in. Happy Holidays! Modernist (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It has now passed, joining this distinguished company. Thanks to all who rallied round, especially JNW who contributed more than I did I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Au contraire! This was really a team effort, as a look at the edit history will show--I think it was Ceoil who dragged me into this one. Congratulations all. It's champagne in paper cups tonight! JNW (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
WELL DONE ALL, CONGRATULATIONS. Modernist (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Amazing job everyone!freshacconcispeaktome 00:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPVA


WikiProject Visual arts

You are welcome to join WikiProject Visual arts, a collaboration between like-minded Wikipedians in order to improve visual arts coverage.

Type {{WPVA}} to get the above. The background colour is the same as on artist info boxes. Please watchlist... Tyrenius (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Portrait of Suzanne Bloch

Somebody better-versed on Picasso than I am may want to inspect this article, where a surprising claim is alleged to be supported by Sutton and Moravia & Lecaldano. There may be some ventriloquism going on here as the one source I have been able to check does not say anything like what it is alleged to say. I've made modifications accordingly, but I still suspect the article of false precision in naming this "the last painting of the blue period" and claiming that a consensus of experts agrees. Ewulp (http://) 05:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No mention

In the 1980 MoMA catalog accompanying the massive Pablo Picasso retrospective on page 56 in the Chronology - 1904 - 1906, it clearly states: "Spring-Summer: Paints last "blue" works, among them Woman Ironing and the gouache Woman with Helmet of Hair, (both p.60).

"In summer, liaison with woman named Madeleine, about whom little is known, although she is probably model for Woman with Helmet of Hair. She inspires the Maternite theme that appears repeatedly in his drawings and gouaches and leads finally to the theme of the Family of Harlequin (pp. 62,63)." - No Mention at all of Portrait of Suzanne Bloch Modernist (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, in two large catalogues accompanying recent museum exhibitions, one on Picasso's early work, and one on his portraits, no mention was made of the Bloch portrait having special chronological significance. JNW (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks to JNW, Modernist, Tyrenius, and Dornicke for helping out here! And best news of all is that the painting has been recovered. Ewulp (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Artnet-wik

A new editor has created a number of pages taken, I believe, from translations from the German wiki. I've tagged most with some copyedit and tone tags. I don't have a great deal of time at the moment to go through them in detail. Some other editors may want to check in and do some work. I don't believe there are too many notability issues, just grammar and tone fixes. I'm sending a note to Artnet-wik so he/she knows this is going on and it's not a personal thing, just some clean-up. freshacconcispeaktome 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In at least one of the articles, there might be a COI issue, with the subject of the article being connected (in exactly which way is not entirely clear to me) with the author. The page was taken from a third-party site, and permission was obtained retrospectively. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for your kindly support.

talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artnet-wik (talk • contribs)

John Michael Wright

I've just written the above article from a redlink. I'd be grateful for any feedback by anyone who knows anything about 17thC baroque portraiture. I've taken this as far as my sources allow, but most of them are historical rather than artistic and if anyone knows where I can get a hold of critical assessments of his actual work I'd also be obliged. It may be obvious from reading this, but I actually know nothing whatsoever about art.--Docg 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Cuban artists

See WP:COI/N#Category:Cuban_contemporary_artists: apparently some spamming going on, but worth a glance to make sure notable ones aren't being binned during the cleanup. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Archive_4&oldid=1140243660"