Talk:Jerry Saltz

Photo
This photo is terrible.Warrenking (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Why?.Total-equilibrium (talk) 5:55, 25 September 2010 (ET)
 * I replaced the photo with this drawing of Jerry by Phong Bui. Although I'm aware of wikipedia's preference for creative commons images for living persons, the image qualifies as a WP:MUG shot. It's very much taken off guard and is of low quality. I'm going to cite the fifth pillar to ignore all rules in this case. WP:IAR If anyone objects, please help to contact the artist Phong Bui transfer the image to a creative commons license. The image is otherwise of fair use because it is a low res 2D artwork.Warrenking (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the photo issue has yet to be resolved. There has to be a photo of just Jerry online somewhere that can be used. The photo of him with Clinton is confusing. If there was something in the article about his connection with Clinton it would make sense. Does Jerry know Clinton or was this a picture taken at a benefit? Does Clinton acknowledge the association with Jerry? SunRiddled (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No progress on the photo :(Warrenking (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello! I need to get some bonus points from a prof as I inch toward getting the thesis done. I see some of these characters all the time and have photos. I will upload one and also make this art critic a well deserved writer infobox. It will be a photo from a public/press event so no worries about public-figure privacy. I'll have it/them loaded soon. Thanks for your patience with my new-user slowness.ChelseaReporter (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: Okay the infobox and new photo is live. I hope the old photo (I moved it, didn't remove) stays since it has Bill Clinton in it (a tad notable person) and because it is related to Mr Saltz' page on Facebook (which gets mentioned prominently in the article). I would have gotten this up sooner, but it took a while to track down the infobox data &mdash;online Chicago newspapers mostly for that. If anyone has additional information, please do add it. This article needs a lot of buffing and grinding.ChelseaReporter (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * the x-linker BOT (which i don't have time to explain) undid your whole contribution because it contained a link to an exterior social-networking website. for the bot to trash your whole addition was a case of swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. i restored your contribution except for that facebook link --leaving it in would just attract more UNDObots. otherwise, decent addition. don't get scared off by being so heavily pounced upon at first. Cramyourspam (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * new photo in infobox. bonus points: wife roberta smith included --and at a public event so no privacy worries. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

General
This page needs and deserves a lot of work. The man has written a couple books worth of essays and is changing art criticism in significant ways, like it or not. I will come back to this page but come on people!Warrenking (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please use section headings.--Artiquities (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The page is not about Jennifer Dalton is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.251.42 (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dalton's work and comments draw attention to the influence and significance of Jerry's participation within a community on Facebook. Third party points of view about a person's character and work are helpful ways that to get a more rounded view of them. What Jerry says about himself is interesting but only goes so far. We need other people who have interacted or researched with the person. In this case, Dalton is a sort of expert on Jerry's facebook usage because she conducted research from over 5 months of his use.Warrenking (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it should contain a section about his views on art? I'm noticing that with a lot of art critic articles it does not really make their views clear. SunRiddled (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Just make sure it meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. This means that we can't take anything directly from his facebook page. But if he reiterates something in an article or he is quoted somewhere include it.Warrenking (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, which other art critics are you thinking of? Who did you look up or do you think merits an expanded entry? Yes, it's true that wikipedia doesn't have many good articles for art critics. It takes people to write them! Go for it and maybe I'll jump in.Warrenking (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Education
Does Saltz have any kind of accredited degree, in his field or otherwise?24.236.70.18 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Criticism heading
I'm glad someone finally jumped in to edit Jerry's page. What is meant be the heading "criticism"? Is this section for criticism of him or by him?Warrenking (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey yes I knew a major edit was coming - I see it still needs to happen - there should br a "critical reception" section as well as a summary of Jerry saltz's views. I see my edit was not incorporated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.251.42 (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Critical reception makes enough sense for me. Do you have anything that would go under there? It would mean a slight reorganizing of the page but go for it.Warrenking (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone had made some edits, don't know if they were yours. I read through them it was almost entirely redundant from the lead paragraph. It was also entirely unreferenced, which is a problem. The Joan Didion thing still needs a reference.Warrenking (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I could see making Jen Dalton a foonote while refferencing "artists" or bloggers" - there are other people who "research" Jerry Saltz an who have written about his every move. Google it. John Yao (or Yau) wrote a buzzworthy piece in the Brooklyn Rail and there was response to that - i could write that or paint it or make a collage about it or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.251.42 (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Work of Art
We still need someone to go into more depth about Jerry's participation and views on Work of Art. There have been several newspaper articles about it, including his own.Warrenking (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to gather some things for this. I know Jerry has posted some reflections on his experiences. I think there is even an article where he mentions that he regrets involvement from a professional standpoint. He has also received criticism for his role from art critic Tyler Green writing for Artinfo. It should not be presented as a snark fest but the criticism does deserve to be in this article since Saltz himself has written about it.SunRiddled (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Saltz was once an artist
Saltz posted on Facebook saying that he was once an artist exhibiting in Chicago. I can't recall the gallery name at this time. Should the fact that he was once an exhibiting artist be mentioned if proper sources can be found? He has said on Facebook that he took up writing about art because it was one way he could be involved with the art world.SunRiddled (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Facebook is not a reliable source, sorry...Modernist (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But should info about his art be mentioned if proper sources can be found? I also have a question about the bio photo. Shouldn't one of just Saltz be used instead of one of him standing next to someone? The one of him standing with Clinton would be great if there were more info about what the connection between them is.SunRiddled (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The photo qualifies as a WP:MUG as far as I'm concerned and should be replaced. Although Saltz is shown posing with Clinton for a photo, he was not posing for this photo. He's facing a different direction, completely unaware of this photographer. In addition the photo is of low quality, both burned and out of focus. You bring up a good point as well that significance of the photo of him with Clinton is not clear and considering that the subject of the article is Saltz and not "Saltz and Clinton", should be replaced with a photo of Saltz alone. The problem is that this photo must be replaced with a Creative Commons-licensed photo; I encourage you to convince someone to grant Creative Commons licensing to an existing photo of Saltz. I've argued in the past that the social value of a Creative Commons-licensed photo is reduced if the photo is of such low quality that no one will want to use it anyway. However, many of the editors of Wikipedia strictly defend the preference for Creative Commons regardless of quality.Warrenking (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume another picture could not be found? I've had no luck.SunRiddled (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Next book
This was at the end of the article, I see no reason for its inclusion since it appears to not have happened.

In early August 2010 Saltz announced on his Facebook page that he and his wife Roberta Smith intend to publish a book of their favorite paintings in New York. The couple will select their 100 favorite paintings in New York museums and write 100-word entries for each. Saltz encouraged submissions from guest artists, critics, curators, and dealers in the post on his Facebook page. He informed his online friends that "there's no money in this for you whatsoever," but promises a byline for authors of selected entries. The project grew out of a feature he wrote for New York Magazine reporting on some of the paintings in New York museums that he spent his summer visiting. Referring to the South African born art critic Wendy Beckett, he described himself as "Sister Wendy in swimming trunks." Bangabandhu (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)