Talk:Willem de Kooning

Untitled
Some of this article may have been plagiarized from the Encyclopedia Britannica, present edition.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=1750

"He had his first one-man show, which consisted of his black-and-white enamel compositions, at the Charles Egan Gallery in New York in 1948 and taught at Black Mountain College in North Carolina in 1948 and at the Yale School of Art in 1950–51."

That sentence appears exactly in both articles.

_____-

"The savagely applied pigment and the use of colours that seem vomited on his canvas combine ..."

this statement is not only presumptuous and incorrect, it also reveals complete lack of insight into the actual way in which de Kooning worked -- early-career, mid-career, or late-career. it is being applied to the period of his most famous "Woman" paintings, but exhibits an obvious confusing of the psychological implications -- (or, more acurately, interpretations)-- of these paintings with the technique in which they were painted. De Kooning painted with a precision-like understanding of his materials, and never applied anything "savagely".

this confusion of technique with interpretation also reeks of a kind of adolescent political fixation on possible psychological implications of these "Woman" paintings (which can be seen in the statements following that sentence) that some young art history students are quite fond of. unfortunately, these interpretations usually reveal more about the writer (or student) than the painter. that is a different subject, however, and more open to debate.

Alzheimer's disease
The statement, "Despite published claims, Willem de Kooning was never definitively diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease," seems to stress a particular point of view about the diagnosis, rather than simply stating facts verifiable from sources. It's always better to stick to verifiable sources, so I am returning the diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's, with the reference.--Ethicoaestheticist 11:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In my edit summary I said 'removing' when I of course meant 'returning' :)--Ethicoaestheticist 11:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio
Most of this article has been taken word-for-word from the Encyclopedia Britannica, present edition: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9029596/Willem-de-Kooning --Ethicoaestheticist 12:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Action painting
Harold Rosenberg coined the expression Action painting to primarily describe Willem de Kooning, Franz Kline and Jackson Pollock. From 1951 to 1961 nobody dripped, splattered, or splashed, with more savagely painted and violent brush strokes and fierce surfaces than de Kooning.During the 1950s he inspired hundreds of painters (maybe thousands) by the exciting and powerful freedom of his brushstrokes in the mid to late 1950s abstract landscapes - Paintings like Parc Rosenberg, Montauk Highway, Ruth's Zowie, Spike's Folly, Bolton Landing, Gotham News, Door to The River, etc. Modernist 03:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

________

" From 1951 to 1961 nobody dripped, splattered, or splashed, with more savagely painted and violent brush strokes and fierce surfaces than de Kooning. "

baloney. that's utter nonsense. someone who has bought the KoolAid thinks they know how a brushstroke was applied by looking at a painting, yet (apparently) having no actual experience making one.

considering Pollock made an entire career of splattering and dripping, saying "nobody dripped, splattered more" than de Kooning is totally ludicrous. and a smear here and there is hardly "savage" or violent.

this is total BS. "fierce"? what the h*ll does that mean? DeK's paintings were always designed and pretty.

gakyi


 * Thank you for your opinion. Clearly we differ. I agree Pollock dripped, spattered and smeared as well from 1946 to 1956. Although I don't characterixe his pictures that way. Certainly paintings like the 1951 black and white figures and Easter and The Totem are very carefully considered as are all of Pollock's and De Kooning's pictures. In fact so did Al Leslie, Sam Francis, Michael Goldberg, Milton Resnick, and Joan Mitchell drip, splash and splatter from 1950 to the early 1960s. It's considered wiki-polite to sign your edits with four of these ~ in a row. Modernist 11:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Expressing opinion without citation from reliable source is not acceptable in Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. Citation from reliable source is required for a statement and/or for reply. (Salmon1 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC))

Comment
There doesn't seem to be very much information about the "life" in the "biography." Rncooper (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment
De Kooning. You've got to be kidding.173.71.91.90 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Hans Wurst

Introduction
In the introduction part, I think it is not necessary list 13 New York School painters, one or two that gave great influence to Willem de Kooning would be enough. Too much other artists in the introduction part would feel irrelevant to the article.

Biographical section
In the biography section, the second paragraph does not provide reliable source to the opinion the article made. “Probably under the influence of Arshile Gorky” does not help with the understanding of de Kooning, because readers have no idea of who Arshile Gorky is and there is no reference of where this idea came from. The principle behind biography section is that knowing something about the artist’s life helps us to more fully understand his or her work. Understanding the artist’s life and influences helps the reader discover the artist’s intended meaning to the art works. That is why this section needs to be improve by adding more reliable source such as the interviews with de Kooning.

Jinghan xu (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good observations.Aolivex (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20080512065146/http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/153632/Willem-de-Kooning and http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/153632/Willem-de-Kooning/1751/Mature-works. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: cited sources including http://www.artnews.com/2011/09/08/shaping-de-koonings-legacy/ and http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/06/arts/de-kooning-intrigues-live-on.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is totally unrelated to the problem noted above (and many times on this talk page); it was added much more recently, and not by the same editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And what was the motivation for removing three images? Coldcreation (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
Jinghan -

It looks like most of the edits you've made so far have been on the Woman VI page that you created, so I left most of my comments on that talk page. I did want to say, however, that I noticed the Woman III page is very sparse. Did you happen to come across any information while you were researching on that particular work in his series? If so, you may want to consider adding to that article as well as the Woman VI. I think having a fully fleshed out set of articles on the entire Woman series would be very cool, and it may help you reach the necessary word count for the project. Just something to consider! I was also wondering if you are planning on expanding the sections under Work, as there are several with no text as of yet.

Keep up the great work! Richathanyou (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Surprisingly stubby article
A recent edit summary calls this a "surprisingly stubby article". There's no doubt about that. The reason is that a substantial copyvio dating from 2004 was removed last year. I did start on a skeleton rewrite, but seem to have got side-tracked by other matters at about 1936. Sorry about that! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Including a short summary of the market reception section in the lead without references (already in the main body) seems useful. As an artist, the sale of his oil works in market transactions currently is at the top selling for over $300 million USD. Shorten the version I added into your own words, though it seems reasonable that some summary of the market reception section already in the article should go into the lead section. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Untitled XXV
I've redirected Untitled XXV to this article for now. Feel free to expand! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Willem de Kooning. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721054307/http://www.nea.gov/honors/medals/medalists_year.html to http://www.nea.gov/honors/medals/medalists_year.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140831012400/http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artists/1548/Willem%20de%20Kooning to http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artists/1548/Willem%20de%20Kooning

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) 12:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Signature Style in the Works of Willem de Kooning
In this rather stubby article, there are so many things that needs to be a part of it to better understand the art and life of this great pioneer. I would start from his unique signature style which must be marked and analyzed. I am putting this forward step. I will be updating as and when required in the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriSriChinmaya (talk • contribs) 07:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Mixup
The 2 bottom paintings have been mixed up. Collideascope (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)