Talk:Lorser Feitelson

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lorser Feitelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://oralhistory.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198%2Fzz000905qb&title=%20Los%20Angeles%20Art%20Community%20-%20Group%20Portrait
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091120191547/http://www.louissternfinearts.com/newsite/artist_pages/l_feitelson/l_feitelson_bio.html to http://www.louissternfinearts.com/newsite/artist_pages/l_feitelson/l_feitelson_bio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Prevailing tone of adulation should probably be balanced by more info and substance
I just recently learned about this fellow (via a link from a page about Philip Guston, if I remember rightly) and some of what I see here of his art looks quite good to me. But the article reads like the resume of a job-seeker, or gallery press release promoting a one-man show, the emphasis being on praise, praise and more praise, with some of the superlatives in the text itself, in addition to many laudatory quotes. The ratio of real information to airy puffery is rather poor. Since all I know about Feitelson comes from this article, I can't contribute corrections, balance, or even a meaningful critique of any actual content. The fact is that we all agree (presumably) that his art rates a hefty Wiki page and some samples of his art already establish that he's good, and rates a niche in art history —- so why keep telling us he's wonderful and marvelous and important? We want to know WHY he is, and in what ways he ISN'T, with substance in both the pros and cons. Any above-average wiki page about any above-average artist could serve an adequate model for an overhaul. (Sorry I lost track of my password... username is (or used to be) Chelydra 58.6.197.40 (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Prevailing tone, continued (postscript)
(Feel free to delete any or all of this if you find it too obnoxious to leave as is, but I do think the problem I'm pointing out should be dealt with)

Well, after getting curious enough to look at the article history. . . it seems my hunch was right, that it must have been written by someone with an investment in Feitelson's art, who is using Wikipedia to safeguard that investment and maximize potential returns. This is fine — it's a free country and most of us are capitalists (or would be if we had some capital) — but, really let's be discrete and tasteful and convincing when publishing promos! Think about the different approaches to advertising campaigns... you use one approach for breakfast cereals (bright, cheerful, aiming to get people to grab a box of the stuff without thinking about it) and another for luxury cars (deep, informative, saying what it isn't as well as what it is, getting into the reasons why it's good, aiming to help a select group of elite buyers to make a well-considered decision about a major investment.... and in the process inform and entertain the rest of us just in case we win the lottery next week and have a spare $750,000 or so to spend on some fancy cars... SO... may I suggest that if our chief author . . . . (the gallery owner whose future earnings depend on inflating the importance of west coast hard edge paintings — much of which probably looks like total rubbish to the average viewer and the average viewer, the "mass audience" or "public opinion", has a funny way of being proven right over time — see, for example: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=DZ0XAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=audiences  ) . . . .  come back and try again... and see what happens if you put on your art history scholar hat (can you still find it after all these years?) and leave your salesman hat at the door.  For all the skill and verve of Feitelson's figurative cartoony paintings and jaunty early abstracts, you might still do well to address the possibility that when complete abstraction is devoid of subjective content (eliminating both the hypersensitivity and animal energy that animates the best works for the NY School) - when abrupt hard edges displace those shy fuzzy tremolos you find in Middle Guston and in Rothko... there just might be a relative decline in the artistic and monetary value of the commodity to be marketed...  and perhaps you'd be better off making a convincing case for why it should be seen as valuable rather than just piling up claims that it's really great... (as the tiger says about frosted flakes) and btw the problem is not that you used your real identity openly, because I had already surmised that this piece had to have come from a dealer or collector hoping to boost the value of this art... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.197.40 (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC) 58.6.197.40 (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)