Talk:Figure drawing

Generic title
Since User:FDS has undone some of my changes, I'm going to bring them up for discussion:
 * I feel the photo of the class should be moved down to the section describing figure drawing instruction. The reasons are 1) that's where the visual information is more relevant, and 2) many people are uncomfortable with images of nudity on Wikipedia, and this would makes them less likely to view across it accidentally.
 * I find the statement that scultpure is a form of figure drawing... unusual. In 8 years at a college of art and design, I've never heard it described that way.
 * Why shouldn't Fine Art and Illustration be linked?
 * I don't think it's necessary to explain what "totally nude" means or to enumerate the body parts that are exposed.
 * Similarly, erection obviously means "of the penis"; this phrasing is awkwardly wordy.
 * Is the question of whether female models can use tampons really an issue? To my knowledge, no one questions whether models can wear dentures or earrings.  Or is this only in here to reassure prospective female models?
 * What does "As an institutional activity though, it is probably the only one in which males and females may freely view each other in a nude state," mean (What about medical school, for example?) and how does it add any new information beyond the preceding statement: "Figure drawing (together with figure painting and sculpture), is one of a small number of situations in contemporary Western society in which it is socially acceptable to view a nude body of the other gender without any implications of impropriety"?
 * Why is it specifically "a few" that have policies against current students modeling? Without any statistics, "some" (which doesn't imply that the number is large or small) seems more correct.  Likewise, why did "some" institutions having rules against anyone touching the model become "many"?
 * Additionally, there were several statements that were clearly opinions or assumptions being presented as if they were known facts, which I've already removed (again). I intend to go back and rearrange the remaining information so it reads more smoothly. Tverbeek 05:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * think moving the photo down is fine, as long as you can find some kind of substitute for it, to balance the article by having an image at the top. aside from it, moving the image because certain (i'll avoid labeling here) people may find photos of a nude model in a educational setting uncomfortable is laughable. majority of people won't and shouldn't have a problem with it being there.
 * sculpture as a form of figure drawing should be cleaned up, it sounds more like a personal view then anything else.
 * what is tyro exactly? one of the editors seemed to have used it as a synonim for a "student", but i never heard the word used that way, in fact i never heard that word being used at all. --Tani unit 13:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If you don't know the meaning of a word, look it up :) I've added another image, in this case an illustration, which makes it both topical and less likely to offend (I hope). P.S. I'll be back later to deal with the lengthy essay added to this article recently by User:Spinoza1111, and try to glean the factual information and discard the musings and opinions. Tverbeek 20:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Spinoza1111
On 7-22 Ed Nilges User: spinoza1111 added needed information on the place of figure drawing in culture and the history of art. On 4-1-1819, Richer said the hell with Rome, but c'est d'autres: das ist ein anders: so the hell with Richer.Spinoza1111 09:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In Need of Cleanup
Is anyone else bothered by the tone of this article?. More specifically, the article seems at points to be: presumptuous, biased, and overly concerned with loosely related anecdotes while simultaneously not presenting them in a clear context or even providing wikilinks. In short, I feel this article needs quite a bit of work. I'll try to fix what I can. Thoughts? -- Xastic 20:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I've tried to clean up this article in the past, but I've been too busy lately to do anything with the opinionated additions by Spinoza1111. Go for it. Tverbeek 22:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Drawing from photos, etc.
I've removed the following text from the article and placed it here:


 * The art student needs to realize that drawing copies of other drawings or worse photographs is a very poor way to learn figure drawing according to most teachers. If he or she has no access to the living model, a good alternative is the sculpture gallery of any major museum because drawing in the round is essential to get a feeling for the complex perspective of the body. Also, many art supply shops to this day stock plaster reproductions of famous statues (most commonly the Venus de Milo) from which the tyro can learn far more than from photographs in Maxim or Playboy.

This paragraph is probably my least favorite in the entire article. Not only does it endorse one particular point of view on the topic of figure drawing instruction (see Npov), but more importantly, it conflates two very distinct priorities of figure drawing into a single issue: the learning of linear perspective and the learning of anatomy. This whole issue probably needs a section of its own, but in the mean time I think removing the paragraph is a step in the right direction. Discussion on this issue is quite welcome. Xastic 22:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 04:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)(Edward G. Nilges)I am still learning, therefore I apologize for any misunderstanding.

NPOV can be consistent with how-to. I added this advice because it was taught by my teachers at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

I was thinking of the reader, typical of the art student, who needs practical and hands on advice, not a dull recitativo of facts.

NPOV does NOT mean dullness or facts disconnected from praxis. It means the fair and balanced (sans the nasty tone) reportage of beliefs and for many people their beliefs emerge in their praxis.

No art teacher, to my knowledge, would seriously defend copying photographs, and the only art student to my knowledge to do this regularly was Adolf Hitler (sorry about the Godwin convergence but that's the facts).

And it is folly to teach perspective totally separate from figure drawing in perspective, because the mathematics of perspective emphasise rectangular views which are a block to figure drawing except in the analysis of the figure's masses.

The articles on art technique will be in my POV useless to actual art students who do not learn their trade in the analytic fashion. They should indeed report, as I did report, techniques in the context of which schools espoused which techniques. At the same time, their focus in the case of art technique should be on guidance.

This is not to depart from the facts, only to show a truly NPOV respect for diversity in learning styles!

Please reply. I am sorry I did not see this earlier. I look forward to working with you on restoring the lively and interesting facts concerning what really goes on in figure drawing classes in such a way that real art students can find a usable resource. Spinoza1111 04:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV wasn't the only problem with your essay. You need to understand some other guidelines for Wikipedia content: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.  Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses.

Of course art students need more than "a dull recitativo of facts." That's why they go to art school, where they find out first hand "what really goes on in figure drawing classes". Wikipedia is not here to give "practical and hands on advice" or "guidance"; it cannot and (according to its founder) should not. If you want to write an advice piece for students, please do it somewhere appropriate, such as a web site of your own.

Your statement about Hitler being the only artist to copy photos regularly is completely non-factual; since the invention of photography, artists have routinely worked directly from

Spinoza1111 07:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)That's nonsense. The Impressionists insisted on painting from life for several years after the invention of photography. For 150 years after Daguerre, classical training has insisted that the artist train his hand and eye by drawing and painting from life. It is true that Hockney has shown how many artists use photography and projection as aids, but "routinely"? Nonsense.

Spinoza1111 07:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)OK, I went overboard. Hitler was not the only artist to paint from photographs. But my teachers did emphasise sculpture and the living model for a reason.

Spinoza1111 07:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)This is all opinion which is why I've laid off the article. I think you threw the baby out with the bathwater but it's important to discuss your concerns.

Spinoza1111 07:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)I am concerned that you NOT reference the founder as an authority because NPOV would be not neutral after all if it was what the Founder or el Maximo says it is *simpliciter*. After the Esquire profile, I am concerned that all the publicity go to old Jimbo's head,and I am on record on his discussion page as asking whether wikipedia may not become "a fucking cult" after all.

reference photos. My Illustration degree included a semester-long class in practical

Spinoza1111 07:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Your illustration degree is not a BFA. I can understand that in commercial art it is very important to know how to use photos (without of course stealing intellectual property or something like that, of course of course).

Spinoza1111 07:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)In the booze arts we learn to get beyond time pressure and we say life is short but art is long. We draw from the sculpture of Greece and Rome to learn the secrets of immortality. Or something.

techniques for drawing and painting from photos (and the leftist African-American instructor of it would be surprised by your comparison of him to Hitler). After all, it's standard procedure

Spinoza1111 07:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)That's a real silly inference. It's dreamlike. OK, Hitler wasn't the only artist to paint from photos. So do a lot of second-rate hacks (although it would be inappropriate to say this in the article, it is true).

for portait artists (no one important enough to be the subject of a commissioned portrait is going to sit for protracted painting sessions anymore), and there's a whole post-Modernist

Spinoza1111 07:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Which of course is why there are no John Singer Sargents around the shop.

movement of Photorealism in painting that is based entirely on painting from photos (e.g. Chuck Close). You may not approve of this, but that's where NPOV comes back into play. Tverbeek 13:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 07:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Right, it does...both ways. I suggest that the article needs a section devoted to "schools of thought". SOME artists don't like using photos: others don't. Some feminists think that the nude exploits women: other people don't.

That was indeed the section I added. I would like to work with you on a revision. Spinoza1111

In the future please format your comments in paragraphs, at least. Trying to follow a discussion where people interject comments into the middle of sentences (!) quickly becomes impossible.

My degree is a BFA (with a major in Illustration), complete with four semesters of Life Drawing, a pile of Art History, etc. Furthermore, I work at Kendall College of Art and Design, where I spend my days surrounded by MFAs and other professional artists, and I'm personally acquainted with dozens of professional illustrators. I do know this subject, and it's remarkably presumptuous of you to declare otherwise.

I don't care whether Jimbo Wales' ego is bigger than the sun; I appealed to him as an authority on Wikipedia policy because... he's the one who wrote it. If you don't like the non-negotiable principle on which Wikipedia was founded (NPOV) and your principles don't allow you to abide by that policy, then you are welcome to not contribute to Wikipedia. That's really quite simple. You keep offering to "work with you", but if you insist on doing it on your own terms, rather than Wikipedia's, that's a disingenuous offer.

Your suggestion that the article include a section about "schools" of figure drawing is a reasonable one. But it needs to be written factually and fairly (which your previous meandering and opinionated essay didn't even try to be). Tverbeek 14:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 06:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)(Edward G. Nilges)I'm afraid that given your reply, your removal of my contribution may have constituted the real vandalism. You didn't take the time to edit and you come from a commercial background in which timesaving has affected your conduct on Wikipedia, and it appears to me that you may spend your day not teaching "art" but "getting a job in commercial art".

This is a welcome perspective but today, the article has a POV: that of commercial art at the expense of fine art.

Unavoidably, I sound condescending. This is because I believe that today, certain "memes", if you will infect praxis at such hegemonic levels that entire Wikipedia articles can be unwittingly infected with bias when read *sub specie aeternitatis* and in a historical context.

Today, many if not most art students are concerned with careers, in part because the hegemonic discourse of a privatized media causes them to assume that "success" means making money in their twenties. This causes them to seek quick results, for example by copying intellectual property without permission and using photos in place of sculpture, plaster casts, and the living model.

But from an art-historical standpoint, it is news to me that copying from photos should be even mentioned, given the necessity of an NPOV, in an article about "figure drawing" which in art school means drawing from life, with drawing from casts and sculpture in prep. If I am wrong (I attended SAIC in 1965), let me know.

When I have the time myself, I will draft a more balanced contribution and you are welcome to review it...not Vandalize it by erasing memory in favor of the overcommercial Now.

For my own part, I will re-read the Wales essay on POV and NPOV. While my initial contributions last year to Wikipedia survived the edit process, my enthusiasm for the media and my energy levels may have caused me to infect my contributions with increasing bias. I will also review ALL my recent contributions for this tendency.

End of 11-22-2005 comments from Spinoza1111 09:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits made in a good-faith effort to bring an article into line with Wikipedia standards (again, not just NPOV but the ones against pedagogy and original analysis) is not "vandalism". In fact, I did save the elements you added that were factual and informative, removing only the sections that could not be "fixed" because they were entirely inappropriate.

You seem to believe that because I learned how to create art that people might pay for, that makes me an agent of "commerciality"? The fact that I contribute heavily to a non-commercial encyclopedia, that my day job - at an art school, I remind you - is to enable me to produce art at a financial loss, that I have friends who have never made a penny from their art... all demonstrate otherwise. Understand this, Ed: You do not know me, so the prejudicial assumptions you keep making about me and my imagined motivations will continue to be incorrect.

You're right about one thing: You do come across as condescending... even pretentious, egotistical, and insulting, in fact. And it's not "unavoidable"; you make a choice to stand on a pedestal, point at your stone tablets, and wave your big penis vocabulary in people's faces. It's not as impressive as you may think.

Since you asked: You are incorrect in believing that "figure drawing" only means working from life and props. Figures are drawn using whatever methods people find useful, including from life, from imagination, and from photo reference. That your "classical" instruction included the assertion that working from photo reference Is Not To Be Done doesn't mean it hasn't been done (and you seem to know that it has, with your allusion to Hockney's book). The notion that it shouldn't be mentioned suggests a basic confusion about neutrality; if it's factual, of course it should be mentioned. The fact that many fine artists disapprove should also be mentioned, of course. This can be added without asserting that position, however. And the fact that the bulk of the article is about drawing figures from life, makes your accusation of bias against this approach unfounded. Tverbeek 15:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

(Edward G. Nilges replies to an accusation of pretension and a discourteous note that appears on my own discussion page)

You are, first of all, confused on the meaning of pretension, a subject on which I may be :-) an expert.

The word as ordinarily used, especially in commercial contexts where full humanity is alienated, is quite vague as to three states:

(1) Language sounds pretentious, man knows what he is talking about, audience is ignorant (2) Language sounds pretentious, man doesn't know, audience is ignorant (3) Language sounds pretentious to audience, man knows, audience is ignorant

etc. There are as you can see eight possibilities, and the word is itself pretentious in the sense of sounding learned but being quite vague.

The only common element is the sound of words, quite "subjective" and quite dependent on patterns of speech. Midwesterners, for example, use "pretentious" to refer to unfamiliar speech, and prize their habits being plain folk which are upon investigation discovered to be a mere imprecision.

I'm afraid that the pretense is yours if you infer from your position that your knowledge is exhaustive enough to allow you to vandalize new contributions. You listed your position as a teacher of art in a commercial art school as a qualification. It is only a partial qualification, and at the present time, the article has a jejune and almost adolescent POV.

For example, true NPOV would REMOVE the ridiculous question of whether the male model would get a woody or a hard on in favor of a comparision and a contrast of the emphasis on three-dimensional recreation of form in the 19th century Ecole des Beaux-Artes, versus modern and commercial approaches because it is a NPOV violation to foreground this concern.

As it is, the article just jumps around the subject with a sexually repressed tone as if it were written in the Dark Ages, where the disappearance of any douceur de vivre was also the disappearance of moral seriousness, the ability to put things into proportion, and in fact to educate.

"Wanna learn how to draw, kid? Not here! We're discussing woodies! Get outa here!"

I think it's just absurd for you to write that an encyclopedia is not in any way a how-to. Diderot would be ROTFLHFAO, because his encyclopedia was one of the first books to describe industrial processes and in effect served nascent French industry as a how to (you do know who Denny Diderot was, I hope).

Indeed, your dismissal of the very idea that someone might go to Figure Drawing to d'oh learn how to draw nekkid ladies shows the very split that INFORMS commercial education in art and business schools alike.

Theory is divorced from praxis and the student is assured that he will get, in his rather desparate struggle for existence, praxis minus theory and bullshit about Paul Richert, and stuff, but because theory cannot, ultimately, be divorced from praxis, because in commercial art what "sells" is the Benjaminite "aura" which commercial art enthusiastically estinguishes, the debased praxis has in the final analysis a degenerate theory...which excludes and indeed erases history, here, the history of art.

The result is that the article indeed as you seem to hope becomes no guide to actually drawing the human figure, but an adolescent connection of random observations about figure drawing (which includes my contribution on media without explaining WHY the French were insistent on a fixed methodology) with a sexy model for shits and giggles.

Nice going.

Furthermore, you've changed the terms of the debate, which I kept collegial, to a question of my "attitude" which infantilizes us both and makes this venture something that some little "shop" might engage in.

Finally, you did vandalize my contribution where you did not steal my facts without any proper credit to me, or any attempt to discuss your concerns (hint: what part of email don't you grok?). You acted noncollegially as if the page is now the property of the what was it "Kendall" school of what was it "art" or something like that.

Spinoza1111 12:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the pointless semantic debate and the hypocritical attacks and petty insults, but I'll point out some fundamental misconceptions in this last paragraph about how Wikipedia works. Discussions about content are never carried out via private e-mail, but on the Talk page for each article, and that's exactly where the problems with your essay were aired (and not just by me). It is not possible to "steal" your contributions without credit to you. Anything you contribute to Wikipedia is licensed to Wikipedia, and can be used in any way in Wikipedia. Furthermore, credit is given, through the edit history of the article.

For the last time, I'm asking you to learn what Wikipedia is and the rules by which it operates, and abide by them... whether you agree with them or not. If you are not willing or able to do that, please leave it alone. You have some interesting views; I sincerely encourage you to find an appropriate venue for them. Tverbeek 14:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The Objectivist philosophy of its el Maximo means that no rules exist in excess of a combination of suasion (suasion ineffective without a superstructure of beliefs in excess of Objectivism) and nature considered as the technology (where in a broad sense, technology IS a form of nature).

And, the article violates the rules. It is of unacceptably low quality considered as an "encyclopedia" article because you have tried to make it a form of private property and you over-edit differing perspectives.

Please don't presume to explain the rules, or how things work, to me.

And why is it that I see the ghost of the American slave-owning impulse in Wikipedia? Is it the attitude, your attitude, that unknown posters can be told that they have no rights by such as you? Is it the way in which the rules are enforced by de field hands demselves on behalf of a Massah with respect to I seem to have this bad attitude?

For my current views on Wikipedia in general, you are welcome to go to http://www.developerdotstar.com/community/node/295

Spinoza1111 05:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking it to a more appropriate venue. Tverbeek 12:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 09:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Drop by any time you like. I will stand you to a virtual beer :-). And do ponder my specific concerns with this article in particular and Wikipedia in general.

Merritt30 23 April 2006 10:53 PM This article could use a few tweaks (I'll have to do a bit a reseach myself before attempting some of them): 1) The discussion of "cartooning" should include a disambiguation mention of the original classic definition of a "cartoon" as a prepatory drawing for a painting; 2) It's somewhat misleading to imply that charcoal drawings are inherently less detailed than pencil drawings- they can be quite detailed (it just takes different techniques- e.g., the use of a stump- and more time and work generally to achieve the detail); and 3) The history of figure drawing given in the article needs to be improved, e.g., the system of nineteenth century academic training beginning with charcoal drawings of casts and then proceeding to using live models, etc., should be described.

Another Opinion
I read some of the comments made about this entry- just thought I would throw in my feelings as an artist. The information on the page seems fine and I don't understand a lot of the fuss made about using photographs and whether a picture of an actual art class could be "offensive" to some people. Of course the aim is not to offend people who view these pages, but the subject of the page IS Figure Drawing! If someone is offended by a photograph of a nude model posing for artists- after selecting this subject in the first place, well, obviously Figure Drawing is not for them. If the page is found "accidentally" then they should leave: surely we don't have to sterilize everything all the time. I have not seen this picture but if it is from a class it surely is not that strong...models are not trying to arouse anyone.

Some start drawing from photographs just to become familiar with proportions of the body,( although magazine pics such as those from the magazines mentioned are seldom very good because they are "optimized" for smooth skin and no muscle tone or shadows) maybe try for achieving a likeness in a face...it is nowhere near the experience of an art class but its a start that has some benefits to offer some people and, in my humble opinion, does not warrant total disregard.

Dubious paragraph
The following paragraph should be removed, has been removed, keeps reappearing:"Most figure drawing teachers rarely publically discuss the potential erotic side of drawing nudes. To acknowledge such, puts the figure drawing class in the same category as a strip club, which is politically unacceptable, particularly in conservative communities."This seems to reflect a regional point of view which may not reflect the experience of readers of English WP in much (most) of the world. The strip club comment is especially dubious; whose opinion is this supposed to be? Ewulp 04:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried to help... I re-wrote said paragraph to be (hopefully) more accurate and neutral and included some links to applicable articles, though I don't know how to cite correctly... Could someone else with more experience maybe take on that project? As for the paragraph immediately following, though, I can't find any source to cite on colleges and universities having recruiting problems, but I did re-word it to (again, hopefully) better comply with NPOV. :) Whesparrow 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

--- Removed the paragraphs that have nothing to do with figure drawing, which is about depicting the human body, its anatomy, its gesture, its rhythm, the lights and shadows and so on. Not about how some people have problems with nudity or sexual harrassment, wgcih seem things from outer space to people who draw figure regularly.

--- When taught at the college level, figure drawing models are often (but not always) totally nude (aside from small jewelry or other inconspicuous items), and drawn anatomically complete. Some students may be uncomfortable with nudity in this context, but it is unusual for them to be excused from figure drawing course requirements, as it is considered a necessary part of most illustrative curricula. In circumstances when total nudity is not considered appropriate (such as when the model or the students are minors, the model is uncomfortable posing nude, or the class is less formal than a typical college course), models might wear a form-fitting bathing suit or underwear.

Most schools have standards of conduct for figure drawing sessions, intended to mitigate the potential for sexual harassment. For example:


 * Some prohibit students from socializing with models before, during, and after class.
 * Models rarely undress in front of the class, except to remove their robes when beginning a pose.
 * The instructor might be the only person permitted to speak directly with the model.
 * Most institutions have rules against anyone touching the model.
 * Some prohibit students from modelling at the same institution they attend to avoid awkward/inappropriate interactions when students and models encounter each other outside the classroom.
 * Only students enrolled in the class are allowed to enter during a modelling session.

Policies vary on how to respond in the event that a male model has an erection. Some take a matter-of-fact attitude toward such a situation and expect the students and the model to continue regardless (drawing the figure as he appears), whereas others feel this pushes the limit of propriety into erotic art and/or a sexual situation, and may interrupt the session.

Though both artists and nude models (many of whom are artists themselves) participating in life drawing sessions generally approach the practice with professionalism, focusing strictly on education, others have expressed concern about these sessions' potential to be sexually inappropriate, especially for younger art students.

Due to such sexual concerns, some colleges and universities have had difficulties recruiting nude models for their art classes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.34.165.154 (talk • contribs).


 * For what it's worth I agree with the removal of this material, which describes problems faced by very few figure drawing students anywhere on earth outside of the suburban/rural US. Ewulp 06:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: the particular conditions described in these paragraphs seem rather specific to the nonurban US. (as are the 4 external links) but are presented as if typical of life drawing everywhere. Ewulp 09:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Added to Visual Arts Project
Seems obviousFigureArtist (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition
The opening definition stated that all drawings are studies, which is not the case. A drawing done in preparation for another, more finished work is a study, but a drawing can also be the finished work.FigureArtist (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC) There seemed no reason to clutter the definition with a partial list of body positions when there is a hyperlink to a complete list, and certainly any reader know what the basic positions would be.FigureArtist (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Projects
The "Nudity" project appears to be dormant, and this article does not benefit from any connection to it.FigureArtist (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge Life class
There is a stub Life class that covers the same topic, so there could be a merge/redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FigureArtist (talk • contribs) 11:02, November 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * support merge. The subject is covered in Figure drawing and Art school, and no more needs a stand-alone article than Physics class. But the redirect will be confusing unless we restore the lede to something close to this version so figure drawing is defined first as a gerund and second as a physical object. Ewulp (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * merge - academic drawing is a good subject to include in drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manytexts (talk • contribs) 06:23, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary practice
Doing work on Model (art) I have found some references that would be appropriate for the section Contemporary studio instruction. That section had a reference to "The Art Model's Handbook" which is self-published (CreateSpace) so I removed it.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)