Talk:Camouflage Self-Portrait

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

Metropolitan Museum of Art Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Metropolitan Museum of ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Metropolitan Museum of ArtTemplate:WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of ArtMetropolitan Museum of Art articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Added textual content

poorly written[edit]

This is poorly written, in my opinion. No sources are cited. It is written in a style unbecoming of an encyclopedia entry. You hardly know that:

"Warhol chose an ash-blond, tousled wig which, together with his white face and carefully pencilled, eye make-up gives his face an ageless quality and adds a disconcerting intensity to a gaze that seems almost to transfix the viewer."

That is almost definitely original research, or fanciful writing, at best. Do you have a source that asserts anything of the sort?

Same thing for such sentences as:

"Warhol liked it because it was both abstract and masculine with a distinctly militaristic edge."

Do you have a source for that? Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfSD[edit]

I believe that this article was tagged incorrectly. The picture does have a copyright on it and the owner of that copyright requires a copyright agreement for use as seen here. While this is the case, the article can still exist without the copyright agreement. The subject of the article is the Self-Portrait, not the imagine itself. Please remove the AfSD tag and move it to the photo itself.

While the article is poorly written (shows unsourced opinions of Warhol), Andy Warhol is certainly notable and so is this particular painting as you can see from many of the numerous articles written about it here. I can find no policy that specifically adresses the notability of paintings but I don't think anyone could argue that a painting is notable if it Metropolitan Museum of Art (where this painting currently resides). OlYeller^Talktome 20:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wouldn't deny that the painting is notable. I think the challenge is treating it in a scholarly way, in an encyclopedia article. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed so I took the 2 minutes it took to change the text.OlYeller^Talktome 22:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "camouflage" applied?"[edit]

From where do we derive that the painting is printed "over a patterned ground copied from a piece of the camouflage fabric"? Is the fabric "copied" from a piece of camouflage fabric, or is it camouflage fabric itself? Bus stop (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the person who added the data. If you don't know, did you make it up?OlYeller^Talktome 23:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't add that. Bus stop (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these not your edits [1][2]? I guess if you added them to try and consolidate old and new articles, that would make sense. I removed those lines because they're unverified. After you added them back, I placed a tag on the article stating that not all the data is verified. If you don't have any verification of the data you added, please remove it. OlYeller^Talktome 23:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are my edits, but I was relying on material that was in the article from as early as this point: [3]. Bus stop (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is simple. I removed the data because it shouldn't be there. You put it back. You're responsible for the credibility of that data. I'm removing it. OlYeller^Talktome 01:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is getting humorous or what. Let's stop arguing and do what is best for the article. Do we know whether the camouflage pattern was added to a sheet of blank canvas by Andy Warhol or one of his assistants? My assumption is that we have no knowledge whatsoever about that, because I have seen no source that attests to that -- one way or the other. I did a brief search for that information, and gave up -- finding nothing. Therefore we only know that the image was printed in black over a background in a "camouflage design." But we do not know the origin of that design. It may have been applied to blank canvas by Warhol, or it may have been applied by the manufacturer of camouflage canvas intended for other purposes -- we simply do not know. Therefore I have opted to put in language that is nonspecific on that point. My sentence construction read as follows:

In the finished Camouflage Self-Portrait, the enlarged image is printed, by the silkscreen method, in black over a patterned ground in the design of camouflage fabric.

Your last edit changed that to read as follows:

In the finished Camouflage Self-Portrait, the enlarged image is printed in black over a patterned ground copied from a piece of the camouflage fabric.

Again my question: Do we know that it was "copied from a piece of the camouflage fabric?" Or was it the actual camouflage fabric itself?

Perhaps the misunderstanding concerns my link to "camouflage fabric." The link is not intended to imply that the source of the fabric for Warhol's painting was a commercial manufacturer of camouflage fabric. The link is there to show the reader what camouflage fabric is, in case they don't know. My "language" deliberately says "in the design of" in order to be nonspecific about the actual source of the camouflage background in Warhol's painting.

Also, you have removed my wording saying "by the silkscreen method." I assume that was inadvertent. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop is right. If there isn't a reliable source that specifies whether it is a print by Warhol on actual camouflage fabric or alternatively a camouflage print by Warhol on ordinary fabric, then neither of those specifics can be included in the article. It is only legitimate to say per above: In the finished Camouflage Self-Portrait, the enlarged image is printed, by the silkscreen method, in black over a patterned ground in the design of camouflage fabric, (assuming there is a ref for enlargement, printing and silkscreen method). Ty 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, Warhol started doing this series by printing the camouflage design, then found there was no need as he could print straight onto camouflage fabric, but that would need to be confirmed. I've just checked the ref given, which says "Acrylic and silkscreen on canvas". If they are doing their job properly, then this means that he printed all of it onto blank canvas. Otherwise the specification should read "Acrylic and silkscreen on camouflage canvas". That is not enough to be certain though, unless one has more familiarity with their conventions of materials specification. Ty 03:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I read, "printed" I didn't think of it as a method of application like you have. My point is that, if we don't know how it was applied at all, why are we putting in any words that describe how the camouflage was applied (like if it was silkscreened on)? I was hasty in my last edit and should have left out the word "printed." There is no reference regarding the application in the original article and reverting to old, unreferenced, information doesn't makes sense. You're assuming that just because the original author said it, it's true (even when you noted that it contained original research). I'll remove the implied method of application and only leave the description that is obviously proven by looking at the picture. Feel free to add any information about the application as long as it's referenced. My original goal was to save this article from trigger happy editors who mark articles for speedy deletion for the wrong reasons and would also rather delete an article than take two minute to edit it to remove the PoV/orgiinal research from the article.

Ty, thanks for your research into the matter. When you find a reference that states your claim, edit the article and cite your reference. OlYeller^Talktome 03:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, our edits might conflict as I think we were editing at the same time. My intentions were clear and I believe you'll do what's best for the article. Sorry if I messed up your edit. OlYeller^Talktome 04:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ref says silkscreen. I don't assume. I work from refs. It's always good to improve articles and fairly easily done with a bit of googling. The Polaroid text disappeared. I've reinserted it. Ty 04:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

I suggest renaming the article to Camouflage Self-Portrait (name per Philadelphia Museum), as there are other self portraits by Warhol, so being specific is better. Ty 04:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that idea completely. OlYeller^Talktome 04:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should something be added to the end of that name in case another artist made a camouflage self-portrait? I could see an outside chance that another artist would make a camo S-P as some sort of ode to Warhol. Just a thought. I don't particularly care either way.OlYeller^Talktome 04:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to disambig, unless there's a need first. Ty 04:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]