Talk:Hannah Black

A lot of the recent additions are primary sources (interviews from the artist). Can you replace your sources with secondary sources? If not, they will be deleted. Siarus1074 (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is there a section on talks she has given, etc.?
Why is there a long list of every obscure essay she wrote and every talk she ever gave? Doesn't that read more like a CV than a Wikipedia entry? To me the whole entry seems like self-promotion, and I think it needs a rewrite to make it more neutral.

I propose starting to make it more neutral by removing the section on talks she has given and essays she has published, and instead adding a couple sentences like "she has also written essays in X, Y, and Z journals." Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Aroundthewayboy I have deleted that section since the user that added them has not responded.Siarus1074 (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Aroundthewayboy & Siarus1074: I agree it looked like a CV. I went ahead with some WP:BOLD action and trimmed the talks and exhibitions, creating two slim sections. From what I have seen on WP, group show listings are not so important.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ThatMontrealIPThe group shows are important. They don't have to be that long but can be condensed into a short paragraph like they are for the artists Dana Schutz under exhibitions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Schutz. Please reverse your edit of the group shows and condense to a short paragraph.
 * I don;t see them as important; what is important are the solo exhibitions. A group show means they had one or two works among dozens in an exhibition; a solo show means the show was devoted to a large body of work. The difference is large. If you feel like condensing it into a very short paragraph, I have no objection. But the list does not belong.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Group shows are fine. We are not not concerned with quantity; we are concerned with quality. I've placed a notice requesting wider input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. I have reverted the recent edits. I think wider input would be beneficial. Bus stop (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'll step out of this discussion, before you need to apologize to me again as you had to the last three times. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I apologize for apologizing. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I like and support User:ThatMontrealIP's edits, and I disagree with reverting the bold but reasonable edits. Although long lists of group shows could be worthy of inclusion, they are not worthy when they include every minor and obscure group show an emerging artist has ever participated in. That information would be much better expressed in a paragraph highlighting the most important group shows. Especially in the context of the other puffery on this page, it felt like a self-promotional CV to me.


 * But I especially liked the edits on the talks and other bloated sections, since there is already a clear consensus on this page about that. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Aroundthewayboy—in the context of a biography of an artist it is not "puffery" to inform the reader of the track record, assuming the details are reliably sourced, of gallery participation. This is the standard path that artists follow—they show their work in art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It is puffery and entirely WP:UNDUE to list absolutely everything somone has done. That's the sort of thing that should remain on an artist's website or gallery page, and not Wikipedia. No-one is dounting the artist's notability, but balance is required here. Sionk (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No one has said we should "list absolutely everything somone has done". But nor should we be indiscriminately tearing down a page. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Per Manual_of_Style/Visual_arts: "Long lists of exhibitions should be avoided. It will rarely be useful to mention more than five exhibitions. For contemporary and modern artists the venue of exhibitions can be important evidence of notability, but only the most important should be given." The article currently lists 32 exhibitions and 22 performances/screenings/talks. An edit that reduces this unencyclopedic bloat by removing group shows and keeping some solo shows is the opposite of indiscriminate, as a distinction is being made between solo shows (keep) and group shows (delete). If you believe that this is the wrong standard for inclusion, please propose a different one: If you had to select the five or so most important exhibitions here (because the MOS recommends five as a maximum), which would they be? Ewulp (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think considerably more than 5 exhibitions should be included and they could derive from both the "group" category and the "solo" category. A false distinction is being made between group shows and solo shows. We don't need a lengthy history of exhibitions for someone like Jeff Koons. One reason is that much has been written about Jeff Koons. The voluminous reliable sources on Jeff Koons serve as the basis for the material in an article on Jeff Koons. But in the case of Hannah Black, with a less substantial body of written material from which to craft an article, the exhibition history provides valuable information about the artist. It shows the venues in which she has participated. And in the case of group shows we sometimes see which fellow artists she exhibited with. As you probably know group exhibitions are often themed. Readers might be familiar with the other artists in a group show. And in general galleries are known for their propensities in styles of art. This is informational. Gutting the article serves no one's interests. I am astounded that this is being done. And this started not with this article at all. This issue is an outgrowth of this edit at Dana Schutz. Amazingly the argument has been that Hannah Black is an "obscure rival artist". Next came the initiation of the section we are in, Why is there a section on talks she has given, etc.? Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The list seems rather indiscriminate. Her gallery lists fewer exhibitions (about 45) than our article (54). I think ten is more than enough for didactic purposes; let readers follow the link to Arcadia Missa if they want to wade through a more extensive resume. I ask again: if you were forced to reduce the list, what test would you use? Ewulp (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I decline to choose. I'll leave it up to others. Bus stop (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

If there are no notable inclusions in notable group shows, then none of them should be kept. It makes no sense to pluck a random number out of the sky. All the sourced group shows are cited to primary sources, except one, which is an artsy page of images (no article, critque or report). She's considerably less well known than Jeff Koons, which is no doubt why whoever is promoting her wants to include absolutely everything she's ever done or written. This isn't how the English Wikipedia works, unfortunately. Sionk (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want an article that summarises her career in prose, rather than indiscriminate lists, you could do worse than reinstate some of the article that was culled earlier this year. Sionk (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh I don't think that previous version of the article was very good. It reads like something self-promoting she herself wrote (I'm not saying she did, I'm saying it sounds as if she did). I do think the consensus is pretty clear here that to adhere to WP standards for pages for visual artists, the list of shows should be culled to about 5 shows total, of any kind. And there seems to be a consensus to cut the minor publications and talks lists, too. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It can be hard to distinguish between self-promotion and information. Furthermore I think we should err on the side of self-promotion if we are not sure which it is. The article exists because she has passed notability standards. Whether we are serving her or not is not the primary question. The primary question, in my opinion, concerns what is most informative for the reader. The reader wants to know who Hannah Black is. What does she stand for? What is the history of her involvement in the art world? We don't want the article to look like blatant promotion. But when something is informational or links to something that sheds more light on the subject of the article, I think we should err on the side of inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree. As many others have written and justified many times, there should not be long lists or long descriptions of every little thing she has ever done in her life. The consensus is clear, even though you personally don't like it. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * A suggestion was made by another editor that "If you want an article that summarises her career in prose, rather than indiscriminate lists, you could do worse than reinstate some of the article that was culled earlier this year", and I expressed agreement. "Promotion" is more a matter of style than of substance, at least in my opinion. We don't have "promotion" on the basis of the quantity or the granularity of information provided. "Promotion" is the result of the style of language. "Promotion" is boastful of the subject matter, in this case the subject of this biography. I am not saying that this version is perfect—far from it. Some of it is absolutely awful. But I think a mistake was made in throwing much of it out. That previous version has a terrible lede. It is indeed "promotional". On the other hand the "Controversy" section, which addresses the Open Casket painting issue, is treated better in the older version than the present version, in my opinion. For instance our present version does not even mention the T-shirt inscription "Black Death Spectacle", which is included in the older version. That is a good verbal encapsulation of what the issue is about. Surely it warrants an inclusion in this article. While this is not attributed to the subject of this article I believe it is found in reliable sources addressing this incident. This would be one example. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I looked over the old version and want to clarify my above comments. I think the earlier version's sections about HB's "Themes," etc. was a little puffy, but I did like the old version's section on Shows/Exhibitions. I would totally support replacing all the current lists with the following old text about her shows and exhibitions (but not reverting the whole article back to that old version):
 * Hannah Black has exhibited her video work and installations in a number of galleries. She spends most of her time working in Berlin, London, and New York.[27] Some of her exhibitions included those at the New Museum and Interstate Projects (NY), Arcadia Missa, DRAF and Legion TV (London), Chateau Whitechapel, the Showroom and Café Oto (London), Flutgraben and Societe (Berlin), and the New Museum and Lisa Cooley (NY).[28] Hannah Black has collaborated with musician Bonventure to perform shows at the ICA, the Berlin Biennale, and at Bloc in Hackney Wick.[29] Black's writing has been published multiple times; she has been featured in The New Inquiry, Artforum, Texte zur Kunst and Fireze (DE) as well as other magazines.[30] Hannah Black wrote a book titled Dark Pool Party which was published in February 2016 and featured in Arcadia Missa.[31]
 * If that's what you originally meant, sorry for not understanding! When I first read it, I thought you meant just reverting to the old version, but then rereading I see you said "some" of that content, oops my bad. What do you think about just replacing all the lists with the above paragraph? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I edited the list and to be summarized as a paragraph. It can be added to. Aroundthewayboy Bus stop Siarus1074 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome thanks! Looks good to me! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "If you want an article that summarises her career in prose, rather than indiscriminate lists, you could do worse than reinstate some of the article that was culled earlier this year". That sounds sensible. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)