Talk:Stephen Gill (photographer)

Untitled

This is not a vanity article. This guy is one of the leading contemporary photographers of our time --Furryfrak (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

He has self published many acclaimed books, so I think he is worthy. Also he's had exhibitions in new york, korea, Japan. --Furryfrak (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats all good and fine but an encyclopedic biography does not consist of a series of un-sourced, un-referenced block quotes. If sources can be found for these accolades then they can be summarized and put back in the article. In the meantime I have taken them out per Wiki's guidelines for Bios of Living Persons. see WP:BLP for more details. Thanks for your help and cooperation in improving the article within the confines of Wiki's policies and guidelines.-- — Kbob • Talk • 05:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This copy below, has been removed, it can summarized and put back in the article if reliable sources can be located and cited

“Stephen Gill has learnt this: to haunt the places that haunt him. His photo-accumulations demonstrate a tender vision factored out of experience; alert, watchful, not overeager, wary of that mendacious conceit, ‘closure’. There is always flow, momentum, the sense of a man passing through a place that delights him. A sense of stepping down, immediate engagement, politic exchange. Then he remounts the bicycle and away. Loving retrievals, like a letter to a friend, never possession… What I like about Stephen Gill is that he has learnt to give us only as much as we need, the bones of the bones of the bones…” Iain Sinclair

“Stephen Gill is emerging as a major force in British photography. His best work is a hybrid between documentary and conceptual work. It is the repeated exploration of one idea, executed with the precision that makes these series so fascinating and illuminating. Gill brings a very British, understated irony into portrait and landscape photography.” Martin Parr

“Stephen Gill’s photographs have all the naïve gusto of the field studies series of old. Mercifully lacking in sarcasm and malevolent irony, they are also wise and modern and beautifully laden with tiny, understated details about the way we live today.” Jon Ronson

We need Secondary Sources

References to the Stephen Gill web site are what Wiki considers a "primary source". This kind of a source is OK for objective facts about the subject, like the year he was born or where he went to school. But Wiki does not allow subjective text like his creative process or his philosophy or thinking behind his art etc that is only referenced to the subject's web site. About 90% of the text currently in the Book section of the article would fall in this category. So please look for 'secondary sources' such as news and magazine articles to support the text in that section otherwise it will need to be removed. For more info on source policies see WP:RS Thanks. -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Observer's books

Here's more of what Ronson writes:

Between the 1940s and the early 1980s, the Observer produced a series of books of "field studies". There was the Observer's Book Of Horses And Ponies, Of Grasses, Of Canals, Of Pond Life, Of European Costume, Of Cacti & Other Succulents, and so on. The authors and illustrators had nothing downbeat or sarcastic to say about the various strange places their hearts had led them to. Stephen's photos have all the naive gusto of the Observer series of old, which makes him the perfect person to bring the field study back into the modern world.

He's writing about the Observer's books. The WP article on these is poorly sourced, but I believe it's correct not to hint at any connection with the Observer newspaper, whereas either (A) Ronson is mistaken in implying a connection or (B) I misunderstand him.

Luckily our quotation sidesteps [what I think is] Ronson's minor goof; but instead of:

Stephen's photos have all the naive gusto of the Observer [field studies] series of old

How about plain

Stephen's photos have all the naive gusto of the Observer series of old

with a footnote referring the reader to Observer's Books? -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well seen. I had seen Ronson's mistaken assumption but had not imagined correcting it as well as this. Yes I agree, remove the [...] and add a note. I can't think of a suitable way to say that but I expect you can... Thanks -Lopifalko (talk)