Talk:List of Jewish American visual artists

Title
S/be List of Jewish American visual artists. 24.17.48.241 18:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Imagery/depiction
In response to the person who challenged my removal of photographs, allow me to point out that this is a list of artists. It is not a space to promote the work of certain artists. If photos are added, they should be photos of the artists themselves. Photos of their work belong on their pages.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You say, "If photos are added, they should be photos of the artists themselves. Photos of their work belong on their pages."


 * Why the preference for "photos of the artists" on this page? I'm not sure if I understand the reason for your objection to the depiction of works of art here. Bus stop (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it is a biographical list about Jewish American artists. If the works chosen showed some kind of connection to the fact that they are Jewish and American, then I can understand the rationale, but otherwise placing randomly selected works by one or two artists out of a whole list is essentially promotional.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The works would be highly unlikely to show "some kind of connection to the fact that they are Jewish and American" because they are art and they are good quality. Good quality art especially in contemporary times, even if by people who are "Jewish and American", would unlikely show some kind of a connection to that. "Promotional" in what way? Are there works that you would prefer to see depicted in the article or that you feel are being overlooked for whatever reason? Bus stop (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the subject of this list is artists, not artwork. It's not a matter of personal preferences or whose work I think should be showcased. Another question is whether all these artists are notable. A quick glance seems to indicate that not all of them are. It would be great if someone with knowledge of the US art scene brought these articles up to par and weeded out the ones that don't belong.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are bringing up several points at once. Perhaps it would be best to address one at a time. Presumably the individuals are notable or they would not have articles. What I'm disagreeing about is that "the subject of this list is artists, not artwork." The artist is inextricably linked to the artwork. I would argue that the artwork is of far more importance than the artist though I know others disagree. I still fail to understand what I see as a dogmatic insistence on "the subject of this list is artists, not artwork." Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically I agree with Bus Stop - it is more than normal and typical to illustrate articles about artists with artwork; as to notability - if they have articles in this encyclopedia they can be considered notable here...Modernist (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not use imagery without Fair Use Rationales unless they are in the Public Domain, by the way...Modernist (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about artists. It is a list of artists. BTW, I have looked through a dozen such lists and they are not illustrated at all - not by pictures of the artists or by randomly chosen selections of artwork. I have not seen lists of authors illustrated by their books or lists of sportsmen illustrated by their sport. If you think artwork is imperative here, why not create a chart (like on Hat) and add a little image for each. Maybe we can launch a new model of list...LOL--Geewhiz (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some lists have a few illustrations, some don't. Only add imagery with fair use rationales or are in the public domain...Modernist (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Modernist and Bus stop. The comparison to authors or athletes is not apt as we are talking about visual art here. A cover of a book would tell you little about the book itself and is arguably not part of the art of the book. A photo of an artist is generally not as interesting as the work itself. Some lists do have images (List of Canadian painters showcases an iconic work and could actually show a few more). I think what Gilabrand is saying (if you can forgive my presumption) is that having an image on a list is merely illustrative. In other words, why one image and not another? However, when we are talking about a very specific topic or list, such as this, it can be argued that there is something specifically American and Jewish about the art and that is integral to the art itself. I'm not sure if you could state necessarily that Voice of Fire is inherently Jewish (although I imagine Bus stop would offer a convincing argument that that is in fact the case), I would certainly say that Voice of Fire is very American and is a good choice for a list. Bottom line: is choosing an image editorializing and POV by nature in a list? Possibly and I'd say it points to problems with lists themselves. On the other hand, showing a casual reader an example or two of works of art made by Jewish American artists is useful for a list on Jewish American artists. Perhaps there needs to be a clear indication of that importance in the article on the work. In other words, we should only include an image for a list page that has its own article and we should make sure that article clearly indicates that the work is representative of Jewish American art (with good sources). That way, we ensure that we are not being arbitrary and POV-pushing.  freshacconci  talk talk  15:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is anything Jewish or anything American about the painting Voice of Fire. I think it is just a good painting by a person who fits the requirements of this list, that is, that Barnett Newman was Jewish and American. I agree with the suggestion that works of art for inclusion in such a list as this should be works that have their own articles. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a few added works add visual interest to the page whether or not they have their own article, in fact it might be better if they didn't in terms of strict image guidelines...Modernist (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)