Talk:Sasha Gordon

Style
An encyclopaedic biography should not read like a review of works - artistic description of each painting is useless to most readers, and any attempt at interpretation is risky unless well sourced. Instead, the article should mention: how many paintings she made to-date; when she started painting them; which of notable exhibitions did she take part in; what is the name of her artistic style (if any) and artistic heritage; how have her works been received by art critics; what notable honours and awards she received.

For example, passages like those below don't belong to an encyclopaedic biography and should be replaced with dispassionate, factual text:


 * "carving out space to reimagine and heal from the past"
 * "inserting herself now, often in multiples, to lay claim to the right to occupy space"
 * "eyes... offering a surreal escape"
 * "to address the pressures of the white gaze"

Cheers, — kashmīrī  TALK  08:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Alexisgordon, did you have a chance to look at my comments above? — kashmīrī  TALK  09:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I partly disagree with the start of 's comment ("An encyclopaedic biography should not read like a review of works - artistic description of each painting is useless to most readers"). (This isn't how the whole thing should read, but part of it is welcome to do so.) However, I too don't understand "[laying] claim to the right to occupy space", etc. I'd add to those: "the alienation and disconnection in a white, heteronormative space" (I understand what "alienation" means, but in this context I can't think of any meaning of "disconnection" other than alienation). There's "vulnerable memories" (which might mean vulnerable to forgetting or distortion, but I sense here have some other meaning that I can't think of). And there's "Gordon implicates those gazing upon her body" (implicates these people in what?). -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)