Talk:Sarah Morris

Number of illustrations included in article
There may be an excessive number of illustrations of similar subject matter used in this article. See: Image use policy. There may be a case to produce a separate gallery.--Artiquities (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See Ernst_Ludwig_Kirchner for an example of a gallery.  Ty  01:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As this article stands, there is "sandwiching" of images (two images directly opposite) and this is something that is specifically discouraged in MOS--see: WP:IMAGES--hence, it would make sense that some work is done on the use of images in this article.--Artiquities (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * i believe i've fixed Accotink2  talk 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As it stands this article has got too many illustrations--one per section is a typical on WP. Try creating gallery as Keith Coventry.--Artiquities (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dead links
(moved here from my talk page) I did revert a bit on the films - if we removed everything where a link died then most of Wikipedia would have to go, links die every day. One has to AGF that when the data was added then it was correct (of course if it was very controversial or negative then maybe a different approach would be needed - by consensus of course). Link rot says quite clearly -   Ron h jones  (Talk) 00:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Oops, moved this here from my talk, but forgot to reply). Yes,, you are right of course. However, I suggest that good faith has its limits, and that with an article with such an extended history of WP:COI and WP:COPYVIO as this one, it is also important to ensure that any- and everything in the article is supported by a reliable reference. I've recovered the "dead" link (it was actually malformed, not dead). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The poor article has been through the wringer! Someone complained at OTRS that a valid ref was removed, and your only comment was "rm 1 dead ref not recoverable via archive.org", hence the revert. C'ést la vie.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I didn't know we submitted to external pressure of that sort,, and find that I am sort of disappointed to find that we do. Anyway, if you are in contact with that someone, would you kindly ask if he/she has ever edited this article; and if so, under which of the many WP:SPA usernames with obvious COI that have edited here, including the latest one (assuming in momentary good faith, that is, that there is in fact more than one editor behind them all)? Do you find it at all curious that two editors obsessed with this person found their way here via Getting started suggestions, when Getting started apparently specifically removes BLPs from its suggestions, and there's no copyedit tag on this article? Do you think an SPI would get anywhere? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We only listen to what they have to say, and see if they have any genuine cause for concern - we rarely do what they ask, we just (try to) point them in the right direction - we don't add content for them (although there are plenty who want that!). In this case I know who they are and I can't say - that's OTRS privacy for you - but I don't know their username or IP of if they have ever edited as they didn't say. SPI might work, as they are fairly new accounts it might not be worth while - you might not see them again.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I agree with what you say, but may try it nevertheless, even though the earlier SPAs will surely be declared to be stale. Oh, and of course privacy has to be respected; my suggestion to the contrary above should be treated with the scorn it deserves. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing
Given the long history of WP:COI editing in this article, and the possibility that recent edits are a continuation thereof, I have started a new discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Request edit on 25 March 2015
Hello, I know that in the past there have been numerous problems with this page (COI, NPOV, Sock Puppeting, etc.) and I would like to request help from the editing community in making an informative, accurate, and neutral article. In full disclosure, I am a representative of Sarah Morris, which is why I need your help to make a solid article! I am listing a number of changes below, and I look forward to having a dialogue with the Wiki community about ways to improve this entry. Thank you in advance and if you see any problems with the proposed changes, please let me know!


 * Since this is a page about an artist, I think that it's important to include a work heading (with painting and film sub headings) to give a basic impression of where Sarah Morris fits into the larger artistic landscape.

Work
Morris creates both films and paintings. She sees the two media as interconnected, describing film and painting practices as “two sides of the same coin”. Her films and paintings reference one another visually and thematically, and are created simultaneously.
 * I don't quite get these points from her statements, which are in the words of the artist. Can you find something written about her work from a journalist, author, or other secondary source?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How about: "Morris creates both films and paintings. She sees the two media as interconnected, describing film and painting practices as “two sides of the same coin”. Her films and paintings are sometimes created simultaneously and may reference one another visually and thematically. " This is ✅, but let me know if you have any comments about the rewording-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Paintings
Morris is known for her abstract paintings that feature bright color fields and graphic line work. Her paintings often reference elements of architecture and take titles from bureaucratic institutions.
 * ✅ Great source, good paraphrasing, but just had one category for "Work" since both of these sections are small.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Films
Morris makes films that focus on particular cities or individuals. Films like Midtown, Chicago, and Rio depict urban scenes, focusing on the architecture, politics, industry and leisure. Other films describe a place through the viewpoint of an individual, like psychologist Dr. George Sieber describing the terrorist event at the Olympic Stadium in Munich in the film 1972.
 * Also ✅-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Filmography
Her films include:


 * Midtown (1998)
 * AM/PM (1999)
 * Capital (2000)
 * Miami (2002)
 * Los Angeles (2004)
 * Robert Towne (2006)
 * 1972 (2008)
 * Beijing (2008)
 * Points on a Line (2010)
 * Chicago (2011)
 * Rio (2012)
 * Strange Magic (2014)


 * I know that IMDB is a somewhat dubious source, but a list of films would be useful for people who would like do further research. If there is a better way to cite these films, or if it's not deemed encyclopedic, I'd be happy to talk about it.
 * Have you check out any of these news sources that are a search on her name and film OR films?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy
In 2011 Morris was sued by a group of six origami artists, including Robert J. Lang. They alleged that in 24 works in her "Origami" series of paintings Morris had copied their original crease patterns, colored them, and sold them without permission. Morris acknowledged that she used the crease patterns as a "launch pad" for her paintings, but felt that the changes in scale, context and meaning was great enough to constitute fair use. The case was settled out of court early in 2013; under the settlement, the creators of the crease patterns are to be cited when the works are displayed.


 * Two edits to the Controversy section to improve accuracy and NPOV. The first is to express Morris' legal position in the lawsuit and the second is to change the language "given credit" to "cited" for clarity. The settlement was to not to share the authorship of the paintings, but to include "Based on the origami crease pattern of..." at the bottom of the label when certain paintings are exhibited. For that reason, I think "cited" is a more accurate and appropriate language. Proposed edits are in italics.
 * Comments were attributed to Morris that I didn't see in the article. I modified the content based upon the information from the source to: "Morris acknowledged that she used the crease patterns as a "launch pad" for her paintings. Julie A. Ahrens, Director of Copyright and Fair Use at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society and the rest of her legal team "struggled to pin down the aesthetic value of the CPs" (crease patterns) from a copyright and fair use perspective. " Does that work?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for any help you can provide, and if you'd like to have a conversation about any proposed edits, feel free to reach out!Parallaxstudio (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , I've noted above where I've inserted the requested content, modified the controversy text for your review, and asked for better sources / summary above. Let me know your thoughts and if you're able to find additional sources. Thanks so much for submitting the request.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , If you can find secondary sources for the films, I would be happy to add them, just add another request edit for that part. In the meantime, if you'd like some changes made to the rewritten bits, I would be happy to help out.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your help! I will work on getting more sources and will add another request edit when I have everything ready! Parallaxstudio (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, !-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 18 April 2015

 * Proposed addition of a Filmography section. are these sources ok for the films? Let me know if they work. Thanks!

Filmography

 * Midtown (1998)
 * AM/PM (1999)
 * Capital (2000)
 * Miami (2002)
 * Los Angeles (2004)
 * Robert Towne (2006)
 * 1972 (2008)
 * Beijing (2008)
 * Points on a Line (2010)
 * Chicago (2011)
 * Rio (2012)
 * Strange Magic (2014)

Parallaxstudio (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Request edit to Controversy on 28 April 2015
I would like to request that an edit to the controversy section made on April 20th 2015 by be reverted to its previous state. The removed text was:


 * Morris acknowledged that she used the crease patterns as a "launch pad" for her paintings. Julie A. Ahrens, Director of Copyright and Fair Use at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society and the rest of her legal team "struggled to pin down the aesthetic value of the CPs" (crease patterns) from a copyright and fair use perspective.

The edit causes a problem with WP:NPOV because it gives voice to the people making the allegations in the lawsuit, but does not give voice to the defensive argument. The case never went to trial, and therefore there was never a judicial ruling that would give credibility to the allegations. Therefore to maintain neutrality, both sides of the argument should be represented in the article.

, I see that this aspect of this article is important to you, and I'd be happy to work with you to make improvements and hash out any perceived biases. Let me know your concerns and I will do my best to address them.

Parallaxstudio (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Obviously both sides of the dispute need to be represented. I have restored the text. CorporateM (Talk) 07:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 1 May 2015
I would like to propose a couple of small edits:

Under the heading Personal Life and Education, I think that someone should add the word artist before Liam Gillick so that it reads:


 * Morris was married to artist Liam Gillick; they divorced in 2012.

That way readers can ascertain the notability of Liam Gillick without having to click through the link.


 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 07:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, I would propose that under the heading Exhibitions, the Tulsa Convention center be dropped and replaced with The Lever House in New York City because it is more noteworthy, there's a picture of the installation already in the article, and the article doesn't need to be clogged up with a laundry list of installations. Text would read:


 * She has created site-specific works for institutions including the Lever House, Kunsthalle Bremen in Germany , Gloucester Road tube station in London , Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen in Düsseldorf and the Museum der Moderne in Salzburg, Austria.


 * I incorporated some of this, but a lot of it relied on primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 07:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally, as far as Sarah Morris' nationality, both Grove Art Online and Benezit Dictionary of Artists list her as American, although they do say that she is was born and is active in the UK, so I think that either American or British-American would be more accurate than British for her nationality.


 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 07:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The Oxford Art Online is a subscription service, but you can access it for free through the NYC Public Library Website.

Thank You!

Parallaxstudio (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits requested under WP:COI guidelines
Hello!

Just wanted to make some suggestions for additional content and request a change of quote to a better one that adds clarity and context.

Under Exhibitions, there can be the addition of a solo museum show at M - Museum Leuven in Leuven, Belgium.

Also, two new books to be added to the Publications section:


 * Crease Folds, 2015 ISBN 978-84-942820-7-2


 * Sarah Morris: Capital Letters Read Better for Initials, 2015 ISBN 978-3-941360-46-4

✅ Mduvekot (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Finally, the quote by Julie Aherns, "Julie A. Ahrens, ...'struggled to pin down the aesthetic value of the CPs' (crease patterns) from a copyright and fair use perspective.[11]" is vague and somewhat unclear. Here is some revised text with another quote from her that speaks more to the topic:


 * In 2011 Morris was sued by a group of six origami artists, including Robert J. Lang. They alleged that in 24 works in her "Origami" series of paintings Morris had without permission or credit copied their original crease patterns, coloured them, and sold them as "found" or "traditional" designs. Morris acknowledged that she used the crease patterns as a "launch pad" for her paintings but sees her paintings as "completely and utterly different" from the work of the origami artists.


 * Julie A. Ahrens, Director of Copyright and Fair Use at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, who supported Morris' defense argued, "Under the Second Circuit's reasoning in the Cariou v. Prince case, Morris had every right to use origami crease patterns to create the "Origami" series without requesting permission or paying a licence fee as her expression and composition, presentation, scale, colour palette, and media are new and fundamentally different from the original materals. And, like Prince, her transformative works had no effect on the market for the originals."


 * The case was settled out of court early in 2013; under the settlement, the creators of the crease patterns are to be cited when the works are displayed.

This quote speaks more to the broader issues of fair use and adds context to the issues at play with Morris v. Lang. It also links to other similar cases, allowing people who want to dive deeper into the topic to do so.

Thanks again for all the help!

Parallaxstudio (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅, but as a new section. Halfish of the section on her work should not be about a lawsuit. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sarah Morris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140429221040/http://www.musees-nationaux-alpesmaritimes.fr/library/Sarah%20Morris/CP%20Sarah%20Morris.pdf to http://www.musees-nationaux-alpesmaritimes.fr/library/Sarah%20Morris/CP%20Sarah%20Morris.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

1/22 Revision
Hey, I changed the content back to my version because I think it is an improvement in a number of ways. First, it's a lot more readable (no more choppy sentences), info has been consolidated and better sourced, the broken references have been cleaned up, and there's some additional content that would be valuable to people in the real world (Public Collections).

I'm sorry that you don't think that those changes make the article any better, but instead of reverting the whole thing why don't you explain how you think it could be done better and make individual edits. Edit warring isn't going to improve the entry, so let's keep an open, respectful dialog about any changes. Sound good?


 * Hi, I really would wish you explained your changes on the talk page instead of in the edit summary! Your reasoning behind making changes doesn't really come across in such an abbreviated explanation, so it would be great if you could lay it out here instead. I appreciate the extra effort.


 * I have a comment about your changes, mainly the whole nationality thing. I realize that you have two sources that say that Morris is British, but do you really think that those two sources hold up against The Getty Research Institute, Benezit Dictionary of Artists, and Grove Art Online? All three are academic resources while the two sources that you have used are from news groups, which don't set as high a bar and may be subject to factual inaccuracies. In general, I think it's better to go with the academic sources over news sources, especially on a WP:BLP article. If you need additional influencing, Morris is also listed as American in the MoMA collection (despite the mixed sources), which makes a total of four institutional sources.


 * Since it seems like it's just the two of us going back and forth on this, I'll give you a couple of days to respond before making the changes to the article. But if I don't hear from you, don't say that I didn't give you notice. Or if you want, we could have a WP:3O weigh in on it. Whatever floats your boat.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sarah Morris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140429221040/http://www.musees-nationaux-alpesmaritimes.fr/library/Sarah%20Morris/CP%20Sarah%20Morris.pdf to http://www.musees-nationaux-alpesmaritimes.fr/library/Sarah%20Morris/CP%20Sarah%20Morris.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

questions pertaining to complete deletion of edits I made to page "Sarah Morris"
Hi, I am a graduate student in art history and this is the first page that I have edited on Wikipedia, so bare with me as I do not know all of the ins and outs of Wiki protocol! Over the past few months I have attempted to update and expand the page for Sarah Morris, as I believe many of the stats on it are out of date, and the description of her background and artwork needs expansion. After a few initial bumps in the road re: sourcing, I eventually got a handle on the protocol for proper citations in Wikipedia. Since then, I have provided edits to the page that I believe offer a more vivid understanding of the artist, and most importantly, make the page more accurate. I carefully considered the sources that I used to ensure that they were reputable, and I only included information that could be directly cited. In some cases, my edits were purely to update lists that were incomplete, such as the list of the artist's films, her exhibition history, and institutions that hold her work in their permanent collections. With these edits in particular, I think it is irrefutable that they are anything but objective, factual updates. I also attempted to provide more detail pertaining to the artist's style of work, and her background as an artist.

To my great disappointment, the entirety of my edits were deleted by Justlettersandnumbers. This user made a baseless claim that I had a conflict of interest with the subject of the page, which I have reiterated is not true. I find this confounding and frustrating, particularly in that my intention with these edits was to make the page more accurate, rather than boost the reputation or legacy of the artist. In their blanket deletion of all of my edits, I feel that Justlettersandnumbers has blocked content that I believe improves the article's veracity. Their treatment of my edits and their demeanor towards me feels counterproductive and not in the spirit of Wikipedia's mission. I would really appreciate someone's help with this matter, as my intention is only to enhance this page with no ulterior motive. I have spent a lot of time researching Sarah Morris in my graduate program, and I used the sources and knowledge that I accumulated in that process towards the realization of my edits to this page. Perhaps I am still not fully aware of the intricacies of Wikipedia's policies and so I at least ask for engagement and feedback that is useful and productive.

Fetterw (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)fetterwFetterw (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have undone Justlettersandnumbers's revert. Rather than reverting the entirety the contributions to a page, editors should address individual concerns on a point-by-point basis and ideally edit the page in question to make improvements rather than simply reverting the entirety of the changes whole-cloth. See WP:ROWN and WP:DONTREVERT. Much of the material reverted by Justlettersandnumbers was seemingly non-controversial and apparently well-cited, including a lengthy Filmography section. Paco8191 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Chimera Installation Shot.jpg

Links in Further reading
Propose improving section Further reading by adding links to sources when they are available. This will assist readers finding the sources:



Please comment. - DutchTreat (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Background: This change was made on the main article, then reverted with this edit - DutchTreat (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The sort order in the Futher reading section should be reviewed. The top half is almost chronological. The complete list should be sorted either by date or by level of importance. I would also like to replace cited works with Citation templates which provides a consistent format. Any concerns about these changes? - DutchTreat (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)