Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 6

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 553 of the articles assigned to this project, or 14.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-06-18.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Roughly sounds like between 75 and 80 articles, a list and a link would be useful, we could address them better if we knew where to look. Modernist (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 10:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Artist infobox default colour
Please contribute to yet another discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox Artist.  Ty  23:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Park West Gallery-related articles
In tracking down edits and articles associated with the Park West Gallery conflict of interest problem, I came across several artist biographies created at least in part to link back to their sales at this gallery. Some of these artists seemed marginally notable.

For example, for the Anatole Krasnyansky article, I did a search of Google News' archives. I turned up 20+ news mentions however they seem to be either passing mentions or Park West Gallery press releases.

Here are two more that may or may not be notable; I was hoping the French Wikipedia would have something useful, but they don't have articles on either artist:
 * Emile Bellet
 * Jean-Claude Picot

Before I nominate any of these for deletion, can someone here take a look at them and see if the artists meet our notability requirements? We need something other than gallery spam to base these articles on.

Thanks, A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've speedy deleted 2 of them per A7, as notability isn't established in the article (and preliminary research doesn't yield evidence either). Anatole Krasnyansky isn't, as established on the talk page, a speedy, but may be AfD, if claims aren't able to be substantiated.  Ty  01:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Watercolor painting - image by Jose Fadul
Would some other editors please adjudicate on this - myself and an anon IP have now repeatedly removed the image at from the watercolour painting page. Regardless of its merits as a painting I can see no reason why this work by someone not notable as an artist should be included there as it illustrates no particular point in the article. The re-inserters also seem to have a particular interest in this gent Special:Contributions/Bunsoy and Special:Contributions/MCLeander. Discussion section started at Talk:Watercolor_painting. Thanks -Hunting dog (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * just after writing that image got deleted  due to license problem, please keep an eye on article though, I suspect it might come back.- Hunting dog (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Park West Gallery
Participation welcome on this article, which needs careful handling.  Ty  06:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pixologist rewritten
Hi, I've rewritten pixologist and encourage you to visit Articles for deletion/Pixologist to see if concerns have been addressed. Please note that a name change to pixel artist is almost assured if the article is kept. Banje boi 21:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD ended. Article moved to Pixel artist.  Ty  00:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Crown Fountain
There is an issue in the Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain about whether the fountain is also a video sculpture. Can you please offer your opinions? You guys may want to create a page for video sculpture as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Cloud Gate delisting attempt
Cloud Gate has been listed for individual reassessment at WP:GAR at Talk:Cloud Gate/GA2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain
This FAC is getting long in the tooth with few people willing to take one side or the other on whether it should be promoted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Italics for fountains?
Do fountains count as visual art whose name should be italicized? Many articles italicize fountain names and many do not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Crown Fountain is designated as art, is it not? Therefore it should be in italics as the title of an artwork. In that case, it's a question of differentiating between which fountains are art and which are not, thus creating two different formats for what will appear to the average reader to be exactly the same class of object. It is therefore pragmatic to simply use italics for all fountains.   Ty  06:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are many fountains at issue. In the article, I name many fountains fountains (Trevi Fountain & Buckingham Fountain not italicized, but Fountain of the Great Lakes, and Fountain of Time). Half are italicized in their own article and half are not.  Then there are all kinds of other fountains, many of which are italicized and many of which are not.  Are fountains works of art for the purposes of italicizing the title?  Are they works of arts as far as image policy?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All of those should be italicised in my view, but some, like those at Chatsworth House and the Jet d'Eau at Geneva, which are basically just large hose-pipes pointing vertically upwards, in existing bodies of water, should not be, imo. If an artist rather than, or as well as, an architect or engineer is credited, then they should be italicised I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked this same question at the ref desk, but there didn't seem to be a consensus. (To Johnbod) Can you point to a book or journal article that actually puts "Trevi Fountain" or "Buckingham Fountain" in italics? Zagalejo^^^ 19:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't be bothered to look, & most books & articles don't follow the WP convention anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't yet have a clear convention for this particular situation. And each element of the MOS should have some precedence in an off-wiki style guide. Zagalejo^^^ 19:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything said in a style guide would certainly be relevant; there are links to some art ones at WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style. However the Association of Art Editors one does not italicise even the titles of paintings, as WP does, but most art history writing in fact does not, so naturally the issue does not arise. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But what about general style guides, like Chicago or Hart? Zagalejo^^^ 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have access - let us know, but check what they say about paintings, novels etc also. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the only ones I have access to right now are Turabian and the MLA Handbook. They both say that paintings, novels, sculptures, ships, etc should be in italics, but they don't say anything explicit about fountains. At the Crown Fountain FAC, however, I've given a few examples of books that, on the same page, italicize Cloud Gate ( a sculpture) while leaving Crown Fountain in Roman letters. So, there must be some convention somehwere that says that fountain names are to be put in Roman letters. Zagalejo^^^ 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've checked the Chicago guide. I don't think it explicitly says anything about fountains, but in the section on Buildings and Monuments, it uses "Buckingham Fountain" in its examples for proper capitalization, and renders the name in Roman type. Zagalejo^^^ 07:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems more logical to me that the name of a fountain would be treated like the name of a building, such as the Palazzo Pitti, or Villa Borghese; unless referring to a specific sculpture that is part of the fountain, such as the Tritone in Bernini's Fontana del Tritone. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have waited for consensus because I just added italics to Trevi and Buckingham.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One statue, yes, but a group of statues with a bit of water, no? Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing, for example, in the Trevi Fountain that is known by a name (not as a group or individually), so I think it should be treated a building, without italics. The Florence Duomo has a great deal of sculpture, but nothing called by name (that I ever heard of). On the other hand, Orsanmichele has sculpture that is famous in its own right; and in discussion Christ and St. Thomas by Verrocchio would have italics, even if Orsanmichele does not. I do not see why fountains should be treated differently than buildings. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because fountains are not buildings; sculptural fountains are just sculpture & water. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) A simple solution is to say that all fountains should be treated as sculptures and their names put in italics.  Ty  04:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Many buildings are works of art, and some have significent sculpture, painting, and/or mosaic floors, or ceilings, integrated into them. But, even those which are named structures, such as the Florence Baptistry, do not get their names in italics. Could you explain why the Fountain of Neptune in Florence should have its name italized, but the Florence Baptistry should not? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Buildings are works of architecture, which may as you say, have art incorporated into them. A fountain, however, is a work of art: it is a sculpture. These are conventions, which on occasion may be peculiar, but are on the whole viable.  Ty  12:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In my view this is a distinction without a difference. But, since there seems to be a consensus, there is no point to dragging out this discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think purpose is the distinction. A building starts with a utilitarian purpose, a sculpture with an aesthetic one, and a fountain primarily the latter. I have put a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(titles).  Ty  15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see why you think this has a more utilitarian purpose than this . But, as I said, since there is consensus there is no point in further discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus yet. Until someone can point to a book or journal article that renders fountain names in italics, I won't be satisfied. Zagalejo^^^ 19:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Italiano o/or English?
I noticed while looking for the examples above, that
 * 1) The name of the name of the Palazzo Pitti article is Palazzo Pitti, and
 * 2) The name of the Villa Borghese article is Villa Borghese, but
 * 3) The name of the Fontana del Tritone article is Triton Fountain.

Is there any rule for which language used in the titles of articles, or is it random distribution? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These come mostly under the Architecture project, but WP:COMMON is the policy - see Florence Cathedral talk for one of many debates on the matter, and also the WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Rococo
I looked up Rococo today hoping to find out more about this period in art, but found an article that lacks any referencing and is relatively unclear. I was hoping someone knowledgeable in the subject of art could clean it up a bit and make the characteristics of the period more clear. Thanks. Kristamaranatha (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a small gallery of Rococo painters..Modernist (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Though unreferenced, the text seemed pretty good to me - "the characteristics" of a period can be very difficult to express in prose, but this does a fair job & has plenty of pictures. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci peer review
Any comments at Peer review/Leonardo da Vinci/archive3 would be most appreciated. It's a vital article, so it would be nice to get as many views as possible. Thanks. Papa November (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest Crown Fountain FAC issue
The number of respondents with for/against opinions is still sparse, but the latest issue is whether the article has excessive fair use images. Can anyone here comment on this debate at Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of response and general quick responses from this group I will clarify my issue:
 * The first issue is whether given the main image, does the three image sequence of images add anything or would nothing be lost with its removal is important enough to be included in its entirety?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The second issue is whether the lone night image adds anything given the pair of night images?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Henry Moore - FA Review
User:TonyTheTiger has now launched an WP:FAR on Henry Moore, which admittedly has only 3 notes. Thanks for telling us about THAT, Tony! Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC) -Ok I take that back completely - he was notifying the other projects. But can anyone ref it up? Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Henry Moore has a discussion page at Featured article review/Henry Moore.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for taking a few minutes for the notification, but as you can see an inactive subproject template had to be replaced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries at all - see above. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not using the official notification before. Henry Moore has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The FARC start is not good and the FA cleanup was never completed. I hope you guys have time to take care of this, because it has the makings of a high quality article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Terry Fugate-Wilcox
Could someone have a glance at Terry Fugate-Wilcox? Not one that terribly interests me, but it came up at WP:RSN. Needs cleanup: General problems with unstructured dumping of sources, unsourced assertions of importance, etc; and I suspect COI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The article looks like a messy disaster...in need of a complete tuneup, overhaul, transmission, paintjob and a few new tires. Modernist (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actual Art neds similar work. I've passed it on the WP:COIN too; it may well be a misunderstanding, but there's a smell of WP:OWN too, and a number of accounts have self-identified as Fugate-Wilcox. I think he's definitely notable - Actual Art I'm doubtful of - but the articles need guidance. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Point the accounts to WP:SOCK.  Ty  00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some basic copyediting at Actual Art. I'm not sure if it's even worth saving, but if we can edit it to some basic standards, maybe then we can see if it's actually notable. freshacconcispeaktome 00:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is worth bearing in mind Speedy G11 for articles promoting a subject that need a rewrite.  Ty  01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy G11 might be the correct option...if there is no improvement...Modernist (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I passed this on to the conflict of interest noticeboard (see WP:COIN). I don't want to get too heavy about it as the edits were clearly in good faith, but it could be problematical that - who has self-identified as Valerie Shakespeare, Terry Fugate-Wilcox's wife - doesn't agree with there being a conflict of interest angle to her taking a major direct role in editing the TF-W article (as well as denying IP edits that clearly self-identified as her or TF-W). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Heyo
Let me know what you think.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice. I like the one with the extra curves....Modernist (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just What Is It
There's been problems over Richard Hamilton's collage, Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?, for some time. There's now a thread at AN/I. Please watchlist the article and help out there if you can.  Ty  04:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

External links dispute
Comments welcome at Talk:Hellmouth on whether the external links in this version are justifiable. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Useful Commons decision
Since none of the regulars here voted (I think), they may like me have been unaware of this helpful Commons policy decision on PD art tags just recently:

Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment concerning Guernica
A user would like Picasso's Guernica removed from articles. Comments at Non-free content review here: would be appreciated.....Modernist (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Infobox images
There has arisen this question at the Norman Bluhm article - what is an acceptable image in an artist infobox...A picture of the artist or a work of art by the artist? I am engaged in conversation with AlexGWU (talk) concerning the infobox imagery: The image tag in the infobox is for the image of the artist. See Template:Infobox Artist for parameter usage. Also see Salvador Dali as a style example. Thanks. AlexGWU (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the precedent that we have followed is both - an image of the artist when it is available and usable, and/or a work of art. Some artists pages have images of the artist in text - see Henry Moore, and a sculpture in the infobox; while others have just works of art by choice in the infobox. The Bluhm painting is acceptable in the infobox..Modernist (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But we don't even have an image of the artist!! He has been doing this in many articles, leaving no lead picture at all - see his contributions. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, when decent images are available - works of art, (especially when there are no other choices), I've added them when possible. I was very surprised to see his Norman Bluhm comments. Modernist (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Artist when available, otherwise art.  Ty  07:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The main reason for my decision was to stay consistent with Style. Through searching for artist articles I noticed that the majority of articles which already had boxes with an image were using the artist's image. Also the template directs one to use the artist's image. The precedence explained by Modernist works for me. Johnbod the link you provided on the Norman Bluhm talk page did not contain Wiki policy, they are just suggestions. Is it possible to update the infobox artist template to clarify and add this for the image node? AlexGWU (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot...keep up your good work, stay fluid...Modernist (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also size. Images should usually be left as thumb default. In infobox 300px may work in a longer article, but in a shorter article it makes the image box looks huge in comparison to the text, whereas it should be an adjunct to it. Try 220px or even 180px maybe.  Ty  07:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-free art should not be used if a free image of the artist could be created. If we have free art for whatever reason, then that is preferable to no image, but an image of the artist is preferable to everything else. J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong! See WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style: "It will often be better to place a work by the artist at the top of the article; this is especially the case for imaginary portraits of early artists, or photographs of more recent ones." This issue has been often debated here and on talk pages, and there is clear concensus on this. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is simply that, there is no reason for you to massively delete images because you disagree with other editors interpretation of policy...Modernist (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not deleted any images. If you're going to accuse me of something, at least make sure you have the first idea of what is going on. If you have issue with my interpretation, why don't you ask someone else who knows what they're talking about? The non-free content criteria are pretty clear that non-free content must be irreplaceable- if the artist is still living, a photo could be taken of them, replacing the non-free image used in the infobox. Therefore, non-free paintings should not be used if a free image of the artist themselves could still be created- if the artist is still alive. J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * J Milburn, this is not something that should be done without enough discussion to reach agreement. There should be discussion first...even if you think you are right, and even if you actually are right. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletions
J Milburn (talk) is deleting all images and galleries that he/she doesn't like...or thinks is not in compliance with his/her interpretation of Fair Use policy....I'd like further comment from other editors. The damage being done is massive and unilateral - this editor says ALL GALLERIES MUST GO. See History of painting. Modernist (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, galleries can stay. Non-free galleries must go. Please see the non-free content criteria and our guidelines on non-free content. Non-free images are obviously needed when discussing modern art, but images should be placed inline next to where the images are discussed, (demonstrating their significance, and allowing readers to gain the most from them) not in massive galleries with many other paintings. When placed in galleries, images end up as purely decorative. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and feel free to refer to me with male pronouns. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate your comments, I have as have other editors here seen and understood the guidelines on non-free content and non-free content criteria at studied them at length. In writing an article such as the History of painting, the obvious length and size of the article having inline illustrations would be prohibitive, that said the galleries in this case make economical and spacial sense. To create the complex picture of art today sometimes these POLICIES per WP:UCS and WP:IAR the first rules of Wikipedia, are important. Modernist (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is unbelievable:"Discussion about what? Removing non-free images? Like how we have discussion before removing pictures of penises from featured articles? No. That's not the way it works- it's up to those who wish to include non-free media to convince everyone else that it's needed, not the other way around. Trust me, removing images contrary to our non-free content criteria is pretty standard stuff- myself and others do it every day. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)"

Wow, I can't believe anybody would liken the removal of Picassos and Pollocks to the comment above..I'm at a total loss here.Modernist (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was trying to demonstrate that enforcing policies does not always require discussion. I am working with long standing consensuses regarding non-free content that galleries are not appropriate for displaying non-free images. It's fine to invoke IAR, but when doing so you have to provide clear reasoning as to why a policy should be ignored. It is not up to those trying to enforce a policy to explain why the policy should be followed in particular cases. Why could significant works not be placed inline next to the text discussing them? J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I said because simply takes up too much space. The galleries make sense. Common sense over dogma...rules. Please return the images to History of painting and Color Field, we will continue this discussion hopefully in a civilized manner. Thank you. Modernist (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The images can stay out while we discuss the matter- let us err on the side of caution. I do not see how placing images inline will create size problems. I think part of the issue here is that the article has so many non-free images. Are they all discussed in the prose? No. Some of them aren't even mentioned. Why are they needed? Due to the stock copy-paste rationales, I am unable to determine why each individual image is so necessary. Those that are needed should be placed inline, those that are not should be removed. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I liken enforcing the NFCC to just the same as enforcing any other policy. What's wrong with inline image use in long articles? It would make them shorter- galleries take up a lot of space. J Milburn (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually inline is fine but the galleries take up less space in this instance..We are covering a lot of territory in History of painting. I have made sure every single image is discussed in text there, by the way. Modernist (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I apologise- I scanned for a few of them, and didn't find some. I appreciate that a lot of territory is covered, but as a more synoptic article, a large number of images are not needed, as few paintings will be discussed in-depth. However, images discussed in-depth (or archetypal images from styles discussed in-depth) would be best inline from an editorial point of view. That way, the reader is easily able to see the image being discussed while reading. Galleries are often considered poor form anyway- I've used them, but if a gallery is required, it could be argued that the image-text balance is broken, or that the images are not significant to the article, in a similar way that 'trivia' sections are discouraged, with it being much better if the information is incorporated where it is relevant, rather than being listed with other tidbits. It's because of this apparent lack of relevance and/or detachment from the text that non-free media should not be placed in galleries. J Milburn (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a personal view - if the image is sufficiently discussed either in the caption or the text there is no reason why they should not be. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If an image is significantly discussed in the text, then they should be placed next to where they are discussed. This is a common sense choice, and consistent with the non-free content criteria, specifically point 8. How can an image significantly increase a reader's understanding if it is no where near where it is discussed? J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It has long been standard practice in print texts on art subjects to group the largest number of photographs in the back of the book and separate from the text. There is nothing unusual about going that. It makes it possible to supply needed visual information without having the visual material overwhelm historical information needed for understanding the images. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't read much about the history of art, so I can't really comment on that. However, the article is by no means a book, and so treating it as such is probably a bad idea. The equivalent idea here would be to have the images on a separate article, and I think we can all agree that is a bad idea. Furthermore, Wikipedia is far more stringent in regards to copyright than the majority of printed sources- if a magazine was listing a band's releases, it may well accompany them with images of the covers, but it is longstanding practice that we don't here. Placing so many non-free images in a gallery creates a precedent, which is certainly not something that we want. Another point is that an article with so many non-free images formatted in such a way will never reach featured status, which would be a shame for such an important article. J Milburn (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to evoke a oft-misued saying, but "Wikipedia is not paper" - but in the sense that we approach articles differently that would be done in a book in order to fit the electronic medium better. That said, I think reconsideration how this article is visually presented is in order (which will help address non-free content issues.)
 * This article, as I read it, is a high level overview of painting and art topics, described in chronological and geographical order - completely appropriate. The article is well wiki-linked to specific eras, examples, regional art articles, specific artists, and specific works of art as well.  Given that, I would expect that by following the links I will find more pictures of said artwork if I was interested.
 * With that said, I believe all the galleries should be cut for purely stylistic reasons; if the text is to be a high level overview, so should the images. All free images not used elsewhere should probably be shuffled to appropriate articles that are linked from this. I presume that the non-free image galleries were second or additional uses of the images but again, if not, these should be shuffled somewhere appropriate if they can.  Instead of galleries, this article should rely on selected inline images, and let the specific topic articles have galleries.  When I first looked at this page, I was overwhelmed (and waited a bit, there are probably some size issues here) with the wall of images, and while I don't question the use of the free ones, I think stylistically that a better article can be done without the image galleries though keeping key examples throughout.
 * I understand where you are coming from with the idea of galleries to gather pictures as they do in books, but I think here online the same metaphor doesn't work well with a large encompassing article as big as this one.
 * What this then also affords you is that more modern eras where art will be encumbered by copyright (such as Surrealism) is that you can then go into more depth on specific aspects of that period within the separate article and use non-free images inline without cramping the article too much and avoiding the use of galleries there. --MASEM 13:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't read much about the History of art should disqualify any further comment. The two articles should be restored. I'll restore them if the deleter himself doesn't....We have a project here and this is beyond the pale...Modernist (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact I'm no expert has no baring on the situation- I'm not challenging your knowledge of art, (not that that's relevant) I'm making changes based on Wikipedia policy, which is something I do know a bit about. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, that was in reply to Masem, not me. Dunno if you'd noticed the signatures. If your best defence against our arguments is 'you don't know what you're talking about, I do' then I'm honestly not sure you have a leg to stand on. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking at the content, I'm looking at this both as both non-free content and MOS issues. No, I am not an expert in art, but like J Milburn, I know what our policies say, and non-free galleries need extremely strong rationales to keep; the rationale given to date for the History of Painting article, which is that moving the images (which are discussed in the text, so WP:NFCC is met) from in-line to rationale makes the article easier to read and mimics the book for, are non-sufficiently compelling due to WP:NFCC - that minimal non-free images are used.  My suggestion with the article was to make it more high-level and use the subarticles already linked to this to not only remove the non-free image problem (as now you can go back to using just a handful of non-free images inline) but to make the entire article more readable as well, as walls of images do disrupt the text.
 * Or a more specific example, I point to World War II, which, on a quick pass through both articles, has about the same level of depth and coverage, that is, this is a top level article that is not meant to drill down into details but give the reader the gist of events. There's probably more than enough photography of WWII to make several (free or non-free) galleries on that page, but you notice there aren't any.  I point your attention to what is done under the infobox, the "Campaigns of WWII", which go into more specific details, and their own sets of images there.  I am thinking that the same type of structure can be replicated at the History of Painting article without any difficulty, keeping all of the text while distributing images selectively through the article and to the supporting articles.  You get rid of the NFCC issues while also making the article more in line with MOS and Style guidelines.  Again, you don't have to wipe non-free images completely, but you do need to only use a few key examples for those periods per this article. --MASEM  22:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

CommentThe high quality of the article requires the galleries. I can edit them down and include less imagery, however to remove them is to essentially dumb down the encyclopedia. Paintings and works of art must be seen to be understood properly. It's a complicated history filled with nuance, subtlety and complex description that must be seen. To butcher high quality is a travesty...the History of painting is butchered, by someone who by his own admission I haven't read much about the History of art is way beyond his scope...Please restore the articles...Modernist (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no doubt that some non-free images are required- just place them inline next to where they are discussed, ensure they are relevant to the text and include decent rationales, not just copy-paste jobs. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus - I think the galleries should be restored. In my opinion outsiders should not dictate their interpretation of policies to hard working visual arts experts...I would appreciate other opinions, Modernist (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, am I challenging the cabal? Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that only people in WikiProjects can edit? Why don't we regulars at the various non-free content venues stop outsiders dictating their interpretation of policy to hard working fair use experts? Please be reasonable here. Trying to just dismiss me and others as meddling kids is not reflecting well on you. I am not challenging your right to use images, I'm just saying it should be toned down and that non-free media should definitely not be used in galleries. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think whether or not the images are in galleries should matter - does it in any way affect the copyright holder and their rights with regard to how it is displayed? I don't think it does.  What should matter is how many images are used and why they are used, rather than how they are displayed.  Additionally, I wouldn't think that there would be many cases where FU guidelines would allow for enough non-free images to make a gallery actually useful.  However, for cases where we just have a couple FU images (assuming they are non-trivially discussed/commented in the article) among free images, I wouldn't think this to be a huge deal.  I agree with a lot of what Milburn has said, but it immediately gets harder to agree with someone when they bust out cabal accusations...  Wickethewok (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not they are in galleries is irrelevant. Our picture policies are legally based, and the idea that there is a difference in the legality of a gallery picture vs a in-text one is ridiculous. The important thing is that the image is sufficiently discussed in the article to justify a fair-use rationale; I don't say that all the ones under discussion are. The last time this came up, the policy eventually produced in fact referred to the now-extinct gallery-articles, not small galleries within articles like this. As most VA editors know, it is usually impossible to illustrate survey articles without using these galleries, although personally I like to use long captions.  Are we doomed to go through this every few months? Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a painter, writer, teacher, and sometime contributor here, and I find that the galleries generally serve an aesthetic and practical purpose. I know that Modernist, Johnbod, and others have spent a lot of time hammering out the terms under which the present layouts exist, and I do think they've done an exemplary job. If, as Johnbod writes above, the image is discussed in the text (and I would add, if it clearly elaborates on the text even w/o being cited explicitly), then its use would seem to be valid. JNW (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am prepared to restore the article because I think its a good article being displaced and damaged for the wrong reasons, although in good faith. I will try to integrate some imagery out of the galleries and into the text, and I'll cut some of the galleries back, and/or thin them down..I'll do my best.Modernist (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kat Walsh posted on the Foundation mailing list when first explaining the introduction of the Foundation licensing policy:
 * Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission.

You will note that "modern artworks" are singled out and an acceptable use is "scholarship". The article in its original form is an outstanding example of this, giving a panoramic view of the development of art. Of particular note is the section on modern art, which is (or as things stand, was) a great resource.

This usage meets WP:NFCC. It undoubtedly does "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic": words simply cannot fulfil a complete understanding of a visual artwork. If they could, then artists would simply write down their ideas and there would be no need to make the work. Its approach also fulfils "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I note that the images have been carefully selected, so that each not only represents an artist, but also exemplifies a school of art. Each school has its own specific characterists by definition. It is obviously necessary in an overview article to include these schools. Minimal usage then as a rule of thumb might normally be one example per school, which is the basic editing protocol the article follows.

The use of galleries in this instance is probably the best approach, as there is a certain linearity in the development of modern art, where movements succeed each other. It is easier to demonstrate this and also to enable image comparisons when they are in this form, rather than isolated within the text. It is by no means an arbitrary assemblage but a construction to provide information to the reader in an easy form to mirror the textual narrative.

I grant this is not a standard case. I grant also that there is room for further input into the article to fine tune this approach and apply a close analysis to each image used: I would argue to remove a small number that overlap or over-represent or do not reach the requisite level of importance. This does require a good knowledge of visual art. Fortunately there are a number of dedicated editors here who have demonstrated that knowledge, as well a considerable experience of wiki policies and the ability to work to featured article level.

To date, there has also been, I might point out, a good collegiate working relationship between those editors, where issues are proposed and discussed in depth for consensus building to reach the best outcome for the encyclopedia.

 Ty  04:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am by no means an expert on art, but I comment here because this seems like the perfect example of a walled garden where editors may through sheer numbers decide that their articles are above the law (i.e. wiki policy). However, as wikipedia is a free project, copyrighted images need a damn-good fair use rationale to be used here, which is, frankly, impossible for the non-free use in galleries. Solutions:
 * 1) Use hatnotes to art subarticles and display the non-free images there (they probably already appear there), illustrating each modern art genre or geographic/period art with one sole image in the main article.
 * 2) Text-link to non-free images or their responding articles, displaying them there, not in the main article.
 * 3) Replace all gallery images with a category link.

This still allows a certain convenience for wikipedia readers while keeping with wikipedia's mission. But if this discussion ends in no consensus (or worse, consensus to keep all non-free images around in the main article), it's likely that this will lead to a nasty RFC like for Non-free images in episode lists, Non-free images in fictional character lists, Non-free images in discographies, ... all of which ended in "No overuse (more than a handful) of non-free images in said lists or articles". – sgeureka t•c 09:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid there aren't enough art editors to create weight of numbers. All are welcome to participate. The dialogue is certainly not helped by ad hominem remarks, imposition of rigid blanket statements, and a failure to address the points advanced as to why this particular use is justified. Please read them, in particular User:Kat Walsh's statement above. This article is not a list, by the way.  Ty  10:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice to feel welcome now... I'm sad to say it, but I agree with Sgeureka here. There does seem to be an element of 'I know what I'm talking about, you don't' from some editors. What Sgeureka says in relation to the episode lists is also correct- the precedent is with cutting down image use significantly, and it would be better if we could get a moderately peaceful result here (adding some of the images back into the list, inline) rather than have a few others turn up and start mass removal on an even larger scale. I'm not a controversial admin, I hate and avoid getting involved with all the drama that seems to go on- I have little doubt that there would be others handling this a little more heavy-handedly if they got involved. J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Applying policy to an article and sharing experiences from other types of articles in a seemingly ad hominem fashion is not automatically wrong, it's simply gets right to the core of the problem. I offered three non-scorched-earth solutions that would work with WP:NFC, and the reason why I didn't address certain points is because WP:NFC->Images->#5 already addresses them. Kat Walsh's "[whatevers] are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself" may be true (the "hard" part) but is also a baseless opinion when we consider that de.wiki doesn't allow fairuse and is nevertheless often recognized as the highest-quality wikipedia. Having said that, I am not against non-free content, I just see a big danger in allowing excessive use of non-free content when encyclopedic gain is minimal (or non-existant). And when you/we can avoid the drama that happened in the other types of NFC-problematic articles/lists (WP:NFCC does not really distinguish between them), then that's a big step forward. I already see significant progress below, so this is probably my last reply to this thread. – sgeureka t•c 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If anyone thinks that de:wiki is the "highest quality" one (news to me), that would certainly not apply to their visual arts coverage, which is massively inferior to ours in every way I can think of (even where fair-use is no issue). I wish I could see the "significant progress" you do. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Laugh of the day. Pop art on German wiki. Roll over Warhol. And first prize for the most deficient article on the internet on one of the most important 20th century art movements, Abstract Expressionism, whose paintings apparently aren't a significant enough aspect of their work to merit inclusion. The point is that in art, contrary to most subjects, the text is there to support the images. It doesn't really matter what colour American, British, Russian or German uniforms were in World War II. You can understand the most significant aspects of the subject through words. In visual art, words are deficient. They fail to capture the subject, which can only be understood by seeing it. To not show the images, as German wiki does, does a grave disservice to the reader and ensures the encyclopedia article will remain third rate and in the case of pop art actually misleading. If that was what I found, I wouldn't bother to access the art articles there.  Ty  23:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Abstract Expressionism Where is Nicolas de Staël or Hans Hartung even on the list? Besides which they weren't Abstract Expressionists but rather linked with Georges Mathieu, Jean Dubuffet, Pierre Soulages and others termed as Tachism or in France: Art Informel, or Abstraction lyrique or here and in France Lyrical Abstraction. You have the links but names are scattered all over the place. The imagery on de.wiki's version of Arshile Gorky shows everything except his work and Gorky himself, strange - I think de:wiki has a long way to go..Modernist (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Section break 1
I'm going to reply to a few points that jump out at me above- Wickethewok, I was joking about the cabal thing, but that's exactly what Modernist had just said- 'go away, you're not in this WikiProject, you shouldn't have any say on this'. Furthermore, who said anything about legality? I'm discussing the non-free content criteria- I'm British, I don't really care what the American law on the matter is. The non-free content criteria tell us that non-free images must add significantly to the main prose in helping the reader to understand- how can they do that if they're all tied up in some gallery? Galleries are saying 'look at all these pretty pictures'. A captioned image inline is saying 'while you read that, look at this.' Johnbod- Yes, you're doomed to go through this every few months until it's changed to be acceptable. There are just too many non-free images. TY: I'm not challenging the right to use non-free images, just in this manner. If there are so many non-free images that they have to be in gallery format, then there are obviously too many. I admit that a significant work for every style discussed in depth would be useful, but there simply can not be that many styles discussed in depth without a single free image available for them in the article. What you say about how it is possible that some are not needed is undermined by the fact that every single one of them has the same copy-paste rationale. Instead, the rationale should specifically discuss that image, and point out the area of text that requires the image. However, what you say about using the galleries to compare the images is wrong- non-free images should not be used in a 'look at this image, now look at this image' way- they should complement the text, not each other. J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The gallery with four expressionists with four images surrounded by text should work provided each is discussed. I can place others in-line. I can see doing that with some writing, re-writing and thinking. Nothing excessive and still a complete picture..that's the goal. By the way this argument has been going on for years - thats why my outsider comment..Modernist (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a start. Perhaps just four images in a gallery, followed by an in-depth discussion of the four images, could work. I'm a little dubious about saying that there is no issue with it- allowing any non-free images in galleries could set a rather dangerous precedent. J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your idea and I'll give it a try also..Modernist (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be an idea to try a table instead of a gallery. The latter is somewhat clumsy. The idea of the gallery for art is akin to the periodic table for elements in enabling the reader to clearly see (and hence more easily understand) the relationship between discrete entities. That is why art galleries exist in the form that they do in the world. They were very much conceived of as teaching environments for the populace. How about a table with maybe just as many images as there are at present but a much smaller size. Then the reader would easily be able to click to go to an enlargement and the images would take up proportionately less of the article as a whole. A small size also helps with fair use requirements. I don't mean quite as small as the periodic table, or it would be useless.  Ty  11:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps something like this ? I suppose that would be okay, but I like the galleries better. When searching art topics, what I frequently am interested in first is visual information and I think the galleries do a good job for that. In visual art articles the visual information is of prime importance. I am not sure that those editors commenting here, those who do not have experience editing art articles, understand that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

At History of painting I did a new section called Dada and Surrealism it has a gallery of four as Milburn suggested above and three inline pictures. Also a lotta new text. I think it's ok. I'm thinking section by section...be back in a few hours, I've done the Pioneer section also. Modernist (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Periodic table of art
An idea for a periodic table of art.  Ty  12:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is it seems really complicated to work with..if lots of text is added. Can the tables be used as substitutes for galleries? Although in that case maybe tables with long captions and galleries of four might be an option. Modernist (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tables are very flexible. You can do all sorts of things with them. See Help:Table. There are some image examples at the bottom of the page.  Ty  13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)




 * I table is preferable to a gallery. A table can contain a large amount of information, rather than just being a quick way to display a lot of images. I'm not sure about the 'one image with lots of pictures' thing- I don't think that's a particularly good idea. The way Dada and Surrealism has been done looks far better than I expected- not only is a single line of gallery far better in terms of non-free media, but it creates a good picture-text balance and means that the images are easily accessible, as well as just looking good. I think we're getting somewhere better with this. J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you considered imageframe? --M<font size="-3">ASEM 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It butts the images against each other. They need space between. Also a table is much more flexible. I think tables are the way to go. Galleries are rather clunky and limited in organisation of information. Tables will allow variable columns and rows as in the example of table 1.  Ty  16:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion (as you are using years above), why not Graphical timeline or Horizontal timeline? That would certainly be appropriate for the article which about history. --M<font size="-3">ASEM  17:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Useful templates.  Ty  01:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Dada and Surrealism too. I'm gonna try to improve Pioneers again. Modernist (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I love the tables and I love Masem's ideas for timelines, I think either of them would make the article look excellent. J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see how Modernist gets on. Feedback en route would I'm sure be helpful to see if it's shaping up in the right way.  Ty  01:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jackson Pollock
This Jackson Pollock is targeted for deletion:, Lavander Mist is one of his best paintings (although this is not the entire painting), if it goes Pollock and his entire career is represented by one (slightly overused) image...Modernist (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Purely procedural. Someone has uploaded it as public domain. Should be easy enough to get an image, state the source and fu rationale, if it's needed in an article.  Ty  05:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, feel free to correct the issue. PUI discussions last ages, so you have plenty of time. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Galleries
If galleries are needed and useful in Visual arts articles then galleries should be used. Modernist (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's little issue with galleries, just with non-free galleries. I'm not sure why you've created this new section, let's keep the discussion in the section above. Use arbitrary section breaks if it's getting too big. J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I started this because the other one is getting so long...Modernist (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough- the best way to do that is to put a subjection (tier 3 title- a title with three '=' on either side, not really sure what to call it) with a title something akin to 'section break 1'- then it is clear that it is part of the same discussion. J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started a new section in the discussion above. J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To link or not to link
Talk:Outsider_Art.  Ty  10:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tate
resolves to the Tate gallery.  Ty  00:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Advertising on Willard Wigan
An IP and a new user are intent on advertising an exhibition of the artist, complete with entrance fee. He's fairly minor, even microscopic, though clearly notable (MBE an'all). Assistance would be appreciated.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Louis St Lewis
Louis St. Lewis is at AfD. I don't know well enough when an artist is notable, so perhaps some of y'all could come by and take a look at the AfD? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've pointed him the way to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Damien Hirst
Please watchlist, as he will be attracting a lot of media coverage over a forthcoming Sotheby's auction 15-16 September.  Ty  00:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria
In this week's signpost, it says Non-free content criteria criteria 4 added Or publicly displayed. How does this affect public sculptures in the United States?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very little to not at all, I would think. Johnbod (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It will allow a fair use rationale to be made, where previously it would, theoretically, not have been allowed on this technicality.  Ty  03:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Turk
I've reverted an external link twice. It's been replaced again. Request for evaluation of it, and removal if deemed fit.  Ty  02:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Visual arts
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm! I think we should try to look at this. Do we want Middle Ages from the VA point of view for example?  Should Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, a senior Hare Krishna devotee hardly notable for his painting, have the VA tag at all?  Interestingly, he gets his high rating in large part because of templates like Template:Modern Dharmic writers - I wonder how much those distort these figures?   Also some of these ratings are very out of date (or, worse, done by John Carter) - Anthony van Dyck (one of mine) is at start, I notice. Shall we try to divide the territory up? I could look at medieval & renaissance art up to some date. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To save everyone 5 minutes scrolling down, our ones with clean-up tags are:
 * Art: NPOV (no tags now)
 * Museum: NPOV (no tags now)
 * Piet_Mondrian: original research · cleanup (no tags now)
 * Venus_de_Milo: cleanup - still there

Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Only a week to deadline - any more thoughts? Johnbod (talk)

Proposed list of articles we should ask to be removed
Please add/comment:
 * XArtist - scores hugely on links to it, but not much of an article. Agreed. Cut.
 * XVictor Hugo
 * XSatsvarupa dasa Goswami, gotta go
 * XMiddle Ages, nice if you like castles and the crusades
 * XMuseum??
 * XAcademic art, I don't think so, its overrated besides.
 * XGraffitti, I don't see this at all
 * XCanaletto
 * Paul Gauguin
 * Edvard Munch
 * XRene Magritte mostly a pop culture section and a long list of works.
 * Théodore Géricault
 * XVisual arts - seems unnecessary
 * XDeviant Art - why is this here?
 * Portrait - like Portrait painting a nice article, but needs work.

Proposed list of articles we should ask to be added
Please add/comment:
 * XXXPrintmaking
 * XXUkiyo-e
 * XXJapanese art - better than the painting one I think
 * Japanese painting
 * Chinese art
 * XXChinese painting
 * XXXCulture of the Song Dynasty, great article
 * XXHistory of Chinese art - The best of the 3 Chinese surveys I think - Pericles has been doing great work!
 * XIconography?
 * XHistory of painting
 * Eastern art history - mixed-quality survey of short paras per country. Maybe not much use with links not going anywhere?
 * XXXSelf-portrait
 * XXWestern painting
 * XXXCubism, important movement, short article
 * XPortrait painting, nice article, coming along
 * Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington) (Modernist added this, let me say -Johnbod)
 * XXXTitian - yes
 * XXThomas Eakins
 * XXWinslow Homer
 * XXKathe Kollwitz
 * XXHenry Moore
 * XCaspar David Friedrich
 * XPierre Auguste Renoir
 * XXJean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin
 * XXRokeby Venus
 * XXGiovanni Bellini
 * XWassily Kandinsky
 * XXDiego Rivera
 * XXAndrei Rublev
 * XAntoine Watteau
 * Jan Van Eyck
 * Andre Breton
 * XHans Holbein the Younger
 * XPeter Paul Rubens
 * XXJ.M.W. Turner
 * XXJohn Constable
 * XXMark Rothko
 * Ben Shahn
 * Thomas Hart Benton (painter)
 * David Smith (sculptor)
 * Eva Hesse
 * XXHalo (religious iconography) - global
 * XX's now requested. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * XX - Seconded - Modernist (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod (talk) for starting these lists..Modernist (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your additions! Some considerations:-


 * Looking further at the way this works, we have been sent all articles that have been auto-selected and are tagged by us. So I don't think we need bother "deselecting" eg "Middle Ages" or Victor Hugo, which probably should be there "under" other subject headings - we don't get another article if we lose them.
 * For the articles we want to add, I think it helps their chances if we give them a "top importance" rating. I know we don't normally assess much, but maybe we should make an exception here.
 * I suspect articles selected & added may come under extra attention in terms of fair use images. Something to bear in mind.
 * For similar subjects like Portrait, self-portrait and Portrait painting, also Chinese art, Chinese painting, History of Chinese art etc, we should probably decide the best one & just go for that. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair Use is a distraction; I'd go with Portrait painting, Titian, History of Chinese art, Culture of the Song Dynasty, Japanese art...Modernist (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the ones with an X above, plus Greco-Buddhist art. They are mostly sending the things to schools using UK curriculums, especially in India & South Africa apparently. I think we could add more - Rubens, Rothko .... The bot-selection above has a tab to show the full list, with the ones that didn't make the cut. I've suggested the removals too.  Onbly a week to go... Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for coming in so late to this--I've just added 3 articles for consideration above, 2 of which (Eakins and Kollwitz) I worked on extensively, so my motives are clearly not very altruistic. Also, I recall working on Veronese, which Johnbod also contributed to, a decent article. Okay. Nuff said. JNW (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thomas Eakins is clearly the best of these three. Exceptionally thorough, with many paintings and citations included. Lithoderm (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a batch of biographies to consider for removal, not necessarily for issues of quality (I wrote most of Gericault, so I'm partial to him), but because I think they're too thin to do justice to the subjects. JNW (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree they're short, but I think better than nothing, which may be the alternative in an Indian school. Many have big hit figures. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm adding another big pile of decent articles - sorry if I've confused everybody by adding my X to the choices, but that makes sense to me the most X's are our preferred choices.....by the way - add articles, it's now or neverModernist (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * More added & marked XX - let's see how those shift - we now have 19 in. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

a) the already-approved manual additions pile up here. Some of the ones above have already been cleared (at which point they disappear from the list). However, I will propose the removal of: Paul Kane, Art competitions at the Summer Olympics, Theory of Colours - unless anyone objects.  b) Anyone can approve nominations on the list. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note:

stencil
Yesterday I saw a small exhibit at the Humanities library of the New York City Public Library which was called Art Deco Design: Rhythm and Verve. Throughout there was reference to a technique called "pochoir"; a term I had not heard of but which is stencil. Some of the artists made impressive use of stencil, and I think having the WikiProject Graffiti template on the article may give some readers a somewhat slanted impression of the technique. Since it is a short article, perhaps something other than the template could be found to show the connection with graffiti. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Jones on wiki arts articles
In the Guardian. Interesting, although wiki is not meant to be giving passionate opinions - that's his job! If we get the facts accurate, we've done a good job.  Ty  12:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess there are more and more people out there checking out what we're doing...Modernist (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good to get some recognition and nice to know that JJ gets his quick facts from here! It shows once again the importance of the project, and the shortage of VA editors does mean a lot of the articles aren't as good as they should be. I'd suggest adding tags such as refimprove, unreferenced and nofootnotes, where merited to warn readers that information needs to be checked.  Ty  12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just read the article. What an odd criticism. As an open encyclopedia, its weaknesses would seem to be vulnerability to vandalism and promotion of agendas. To fault the project for too great an adherence to neutrality is bizarre. JNW (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you'd think salaried art critics get enough competition from blogs, without calling for more from us! Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also interesting that the timely issue of Richard Hamilton's authorship of Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? is mentioned as a specific problem. I've stayed out of that fray for several months but kept watch of the discussion. Regrettably, I allowed another editor to drive me away, just from the tedium of the discussion/debate/argument/insults, but I'm thinking perhaps this should become a major priority, as it touches on an important artist, an iconic work and, most importantly, WP:BLP. <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">talk</FONT> 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I most definitely think you should weigh in there again..until there is a clear resolution, but every day little fires break out, I am proud of what we've managed to put together here in the last two years...I have had more than a few battles..seems to go with the territory. Modernist (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't have it watchlisted, but I do now. The correct link is Richard Hamilton (artist). Also needing eyes is Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?.  Ty  22:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead Image

 * I've started a discussion about which image should be in the lead of the Pop Art article at Talk:Pop art here: - Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? 1956, by Hamilton is better known than I was a Rich Man's Plaything 1947, by Eduardo Paolozzi but the Paolozzi is older and input would be appreciated..IMHO I like the Paolozzi, especially in light of the Hamilton controversy, what do others think? Modernist (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1 - Eduardo Paolozzi was a member of the Independent Group, a loose association of young British artists, including Richard Hamilton, who were interested in the impact of technology, mass production and popular culture on art. At their first meeting in 1952, (which included Richard Hamilton and John McHale) Paolozzi gave a hugely influential lecture entitled ‘Bunk' where he demonstrated how people were bombarded daily by an unprecedented array of seemingly paradoxical images. He showed a series of 'found object' collages to the group that he had composed from advertisements, magazines, science journals and comics. Much of material was collected and assembled when he resided in Paris between 1947-1949. I was a Rich Man's Plaything (1947) comes from that 'Bunk' lecture series and was the first to have "pop" as part of the composition. It is well documented that Paolozzi's 1952 'Bunk' lecture is the moment Pop Art in Britain was born, which predated the American Pop Art movement by several years.
 * The following is background for the visual arts discussion group's consideration:

2 - The Paolozzi 1947 collage would seem to be justified as the Pop Art article's lead image since it is well documented that Paolozzi's perspective and early collages anticipated the Pop Art movement and served as its standard bearer. This fact is well known to art historians, art critics, museum curators and major Pop artists. For example, Richard Hamilton and Peter Blake, among others, have referenced the significant influence of Paolozzi's early 'found object' collages. The Paolozzi work is also collected by major international museums. ( For example, see The Tate Collection: London []

3 - While I agree that Hamilton's piece is significant and well-known in the history of Pop Art, it is not more historically significant, influential or scholarly than the Paolozzi piece. Consequently, as major tenets of Wikipedia encylopedic content are to be scholarly and educational, it would seem only fitting for an image that served to lead the Pop Art movement, be the choice to lead the article. Dezignr (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the format as it stands with the Hamilton as the lead. The Paolozzi is now in the Independant group section and the article looks fine IMO...the section can be expanded with more explanatory text perhaps added by ....Modernist (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And referenced preferably. WP:REFB for starting info.  Ty  03:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

4 - Having a separate Independent Group section works well and puts Paolozzi's piece in a more focused context. I added more content to the Indepemndent Group section with inline citations and sources. Since the Pop Art page layout was very disjointed and visually bothersome with lots of white space between sections and around images, I took the liberty to fix it through a combination of adding more verifiable content (with inline citations and sources) to the United States section, rearranging some other content that was out of place and adjusting images so that they would still be located near their specific references, while enabling the text to better fill-in the former white space areas. the article now looks more unified and has more in-depth content. Dezignr (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please have this conversation on the article talk page. Thanks.  Ty  22:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement
Hello all...

An image used in the Tin-glazed pottery article, specifically Image:Ajvdelft.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Try asking User:VAwebteam to see if there's something in the V&A.  Ty  02:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

El Lissitzky at WP:FAR
El Lissitzky has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

2 Peer Reviews

 * Raphael
 * Peer_review

Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Altered Books
Being a form of mixed media, according to the unreferenced article, Altered books is included in the scope of this project, right? Itz just  drama?  20:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup! Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Embedded lists
William Harnett was recently tagged with a laundrylist template. Any thoughts as to what action (if any) is needed here? This one does not lend itself to conversion into prose, as already demonstrated. My own preference would be to replace it with a sentence naming 4 or 5 collections holding Harnett works, but I'd like to hear what others think. Are these long lists of collections useful? Ewulp (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think this is probably ok to leave, though I perhaps wouldn't encourage creation of most such lists. Usually you get long lists of paintings with links to WGA & other external sites. I don't like these at all, and they are deprecated at WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style in most cases, especially for famous & prolific artists. Exceptions would be artists with a very small oeuvre - see Giorgione for example. Templates are fine of course. JNW & I trashed most of the Rembrandt list some time ago. It could be put in lines, and made small perhaps, or in a note. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was much better as prose and have turned it back to that. I suggest pruning to the most important museums and galleries.  Ty  23:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, & seems pretty satisfactory to me. May make a few more cuts if I can identify collections having only a single minor example. Ewulp (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod in that he thinks it okay to leave in the list. Now that's two to two. Not knowing about this "embedded list" thing, I already changed the prose back to the original list. It is natural for art writers to make lists of artist's works and where they are located. I disagree with not including listings in articles about artists. Lists are a whole lot easier to peruse than are prose paragraphs, and a person can actually read them quicker and pick out such things as locations at a glance in a list better than in a paragraph, short or long. For those who don't know, William Harnett was one of the most important still life painters of the 19th century. I hope to eventually add information about some of his important individual works, with references, but Wiki is not my paying job so it will take time. In the meantime, I hope the list is left as is and is not picked apart because such activity can discourage professionals in the arts or other communities from contributing to this whole program. I'll hang in for awhile and see what happens. Take care. — Ayapota (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is OK as it stands now - prose style is usually the preferred way that I've edited lists of collections in artist articles, more and more recently. IMHO the block structure is superior to the long list. I guess it's 3 to 2, 4 to 1....Modernist (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When I said "ok to leave" I was referring to the content, rather than the format. I too think the prose looks better. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I say the following things with respect. You all have done much good on Wikipedia. The following is an expression of opinion with many decades of experience in information gathering, publication, and distribution behind each observation. As I have asked myself, I begin by asking you to ask yourself, “What am I doing here, on Wikipedia?” Am I here to help disseminate knowledge? It’s nice to make articles pretty and be an arbiter of taste, but information distribution on Wikipedia is more important. Don't we want Wikipedia to be the “go to” place on the web for information about anybody or anything? If so, why do you have an attitude for censoring lists? What is so much better about prose paragraphs? It is easy on Wikipedia to change such things as attributions with a proper reference to a citation. I think someone researching an artist would like to know where that artist’s works are located so he/she can go to the closest museum to look. Lists are the best method of performing that function. Also, what is your reasoning regarding listing only “the most important museums”? I think my hometown museum is important, so why would you deny it from being listed. Do you know the most important artists and collections represented in every museum? Why are you limiting this? I’ve found great lists and tables in Wikipedia. They make it really easy to find information. And Wikipedia lists can be made sortable, something you can’t do in a book. Do you want Wikipedia to look like a book? Lists are not often seen in books (the answer to that is at the end of this). They are a whole lot easier than looking through a prose paragraph to try to sort things out. Reading through a paragraph is more difficult and eye staining than reading through a list. But maybe you are all young and don’t have any trouble with eye strain. By not allowing lists, you are defeating part of the purpose of Wikipedia, to find information quickly. Being able to find information quickly is more important than shortening an article when the tiny bits of information that can be made available take comparatively few bytes. By removing reputable lists and, as editors, by not allowing them, you have become censors of reputable and honorable information. Do you want to be known as censors? Those who “trashed” the Rembrandt list should have made it another article, a “List of Rembrandt paintings”. Was it not a reputable list from a reputable source? Did you make a separate article? I couldn’t find one. I, for one, would be interested in seeing such an informative list. Where else on the internet can you access that information? Please do not change good lists to prose nor delete good and reputable information lists that rightfully should be included. Why shouldn’t lists be included? I like things to look pretty just like the rest of you, but not at the expense of knowledge. If “prose” is the policy, then the policy should be changed. There would no doubt be many who would agree on this subject, but I suspect that most people (the silent majority) who use Wikipedia get on just to read information and do not become editors. They wouldn’t know the information they were looking for was once available and an over zealous editor deleted or reduced it to make it look prettier. Do you know why books use prose paragraphs in the manner you have been making lists part of prose. The editors, under directions from the publishers, shorten author’s listings and writings to save money. If you don’t know or haven’t considered it, books don’t contain lists not because they are not considered good but because they take more space, thus more paper, therefore making the book more expensive to print, heavier, and more costly to the publisher and the consumer. So the internet, like in so many other ways, can do something that book publishers don’t want to do. The internet can publish lists and make quick access to information easier. Why should a page on Wikipedia look like a book? Lists are an important method of disseminating information. Lists can be the beginning of tables, an even better method of information compilation. It’s simply wrong to remove lists from or not to allow lists in articles. I trust you will contemplate this. Thank you for your time. – Ayapota (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect the above is one of the most ludicrous comments I've seen yet on wikipedia. There are plenty of lists, and plenty of Visual arts articles with lists - I reverted your absurd infobox list, because it was absurd; it's an infobox: perhaps it's best for you to refrain...from condemning us, when you really don't seem to know what you are talking about and refrain from making anymore lists...thanks...Modernist (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On Rembrandt, no it was not a "reputable list from a reputable source" but the usual rag-bag that had accumulated over the years, and containing many works now regarded as doubtful. There are far better lists on the web, the best linked to from the article. I realize this may not be the case with Hartnett, although Artcyclopedia does a good job as far as on-line images are concerned for most artists (painters anyway). Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Artfacts.net
Has anyone taken a look at artfacts.net? I had a struggle with the notability of an artist recently and found this to be a great resource for verifying that they were in fact displayed in certain galleries or museums. Seems like at the very least a great resource for references for this material, but might it make sense to add it to the infobox or to the external links as a sort of "museum showings" entry? It may prove useful/interesting. If not that, then do check it out for verification of artist notability, it helped me greatly. - sHARD (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just one of a number of similar commercial sites where content is generated by galleries. Certainly it shouldn't be standard procedure to add this to any article, though it may be useful for information at times.  Ty  22:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Art intervention
Info inserted by that is not justified by the ref. I've reverted 3 times already.  Ty  01:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Medici Chapel, San Lorenzo
I noticed that a search for Medici Chapel redirects to Basilica of San Lorenzo, Florence. Nothing wrong with that, but that article has no image of Michelangelo's sculpture. I would have added an image, but Wikimedia Commons does not seem to have one. It makes a strange omission in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons does have photos of it here and here. The photos are incredibly poor, however; the categorization is also incorrect. Here are the ones I thought were the best:



Lithoderm (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the first one of these to the article, but I am not sure which Guiliano de Medici it refers to- I suppose Giuliano di Lorenzo de' Medici because there is another image of the tomb on his page. Curiously, it is the second tomb that is depicted there. It could also be Giuliano di Piero de' Medici. Does anyone know? Lithoderm (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's another:


 * Although it's a not so good angle shot, previously part of the Henry Moore article as an influence on Moore's figures...Modernist (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the one taken from the Henry Moore article would be best to include because it seems more professional quality, even if the camera angle is a little unusual. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done some tweaking and reduced the image size, which looks a bit better (that is, sharper).  Ty  23:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And another.  Ty  23:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice job Ty both are huge improvements...Modernist (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they look much better. It still isn't clear to me, though, which Medici is inside that facade. The link Modernist included in the picture caption leads to a disambig. Lithoderm (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is di Lorenzo, but see this commons cat, which seems to need straightening out. Lithoderm (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to fix the categorization of the images on commons, because the category for Giuliano has photos of both tombs in it. I removed the wrong category from the images using HotCat and added the correct one the same way. Now the category is correct on the image pages, but they are still listed under the wrong category. I don't know what more I can do. Lithoderm (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It just took it a few hours to populate the category, that issue is resolved. The uncertainty expressed below still stands, however.Lithoderm (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Then there's the third Medici tomb in the Chapel, that of Giuliano di Piero de' Medici. The page for him states that
 * He is buried with his brother Lorenzo in the Medici Chapel of the Church
 * of San Lorenzo; their tomb is ornamented with the Madonna and Child of Michelangelo. This would seem to imply that they are both buried underneath that group, which is certainly wrong; furthermore I doubt whether anyone is buried beneath there.

<---The reference is to this sculptural group.

Lithoderm (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Nechvatal
There were some problems regarding this article and related. They have resurfaced in a different area. See User_talk:Tyrenius and Suspected sock puppets/Valueyou. Just in case anyone has anything to contribute to this.  Ty  01:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello there, Jossi has reverted one of the comments that was part of the Valueyou flaming/canvassing drive. While Blinksternet was engaing in reverting the comments across multiple pages I also removed one from here. Jossi is now insisting that I go through admin to remove the comment, I see this as largely unecessary, and rather unusual. Can someone offer an opinion on this please? Semitransgenic (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed it and your reply to be in line with the other removals and left an explanation. It is better to ask someone else to do such things if you are involved with the editor in a conflict. Jossi didn't say to go through an admin: he said follow dispute resolution, which I recall also posting on more than one occasion.  Ty  18:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok cheers for dealing with it. It just seemed Jossi's proposal was a little long winded when, multiple editors, and common sense points to the fact that the comment was not useful, especially as he is admin, and a neutral party. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He was possibly not aware of the full context, in which case your removal would have seemed rather wayward and your edit summaries don't make the situation clear. Good edit summaries can help a lot.:)  Ty  18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually have reason to believe there is more to it, but that's another story ; ) Semitransgenic (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW Ty there is a remaining WP:PA item here would you take a look at this please? Thanks for time with all of this. Best. Semitransgenic (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed. No relevance to improving the article content.  Ty  14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

William Blake's Illustrations of the Book of Job
I almost entirely wrote this article, and am interested in having some feedback on it. It is probably my largest contribution to Wikipedia as of yet, and this would be very useful to me. It would also be nice to have it reassessed, as I think it is better than a stub, but have no experience with rating articles. Thanks, Lithoderm (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the article is off to a terrific start. It needs to be expanded, and some sections like Artistic influences need to move; and it needs more copyediting, I think there must be other artists besides Durer that conspired to influence Blake. The article has good potential, and I have tentatively given it a C grade. It's better than Start. IMHO I don't feel that it's ready yet but good beginning, it feels a little claustraphobic and needs to link to other artists and articles. Modernist (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with those comments, & I have made more at the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this to the article's talk page so that I can refer to it when this page is archived. Lithoderm (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Article request
Today's featured article in Finnish is Marsalkka Mannerheimin ratsastajapatsas (Helsinki), a Mannerheim statue in Helsinki, about which we have no articles. As is reasonable for an FA, it's well referenced; could someone here perhaps attempt to write an article about it? I'm a geography-focused editor, not an arts editor, so I haven't a clue where to get sources. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you speak Finnish. A translation would be a good start as I have no idea what it's talking about. You can try requesting one here. Thanks for the note. Lithoderm (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we don't even have Aimo Tukiainen, the sculptor, which would be the natural first step. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Saatchi Gallery
Comments are invited to Talk:Saatchi_Gallery and Talk:Saatchi_Gallery.  Ty  08:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
Continuation re. the previous post.  Ty  23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

John Goodwin Lyman
One of the images I uploaded, for use in the article above, has been nominated for deletion by J Milburn (talk). While this might have been reasonable based upon the state of the article as he found it, I have added analysis of the painting and its place in Lyman's oeuvre to the article. Please comment at. I'm not too familiar with all of this, so if I'm not in the right on this case, please tell me. Lithoderm (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved this post to the bottom of the page, so people can see it. I hope that's OK. In the meantime, User_talk:J_Milburn.  Ty  03:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Frida Kahlo
Some of us are engaged in a dispute concerning External links and other deletions at Talk:Frida Kahlo: and other opinions would be appreciated. Thanks..Modernist (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have always found this site useful:
 * Frida Kahlo fan site with biography, paintings, and photos

and I don't think it should be deleted in spite of its rather tasteless name.....Modernist (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's now been deleted 4 times by this person:User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom......Modernist (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Needing watching
SPAs, probable COI (confirmed with Thornton) editing for favourable bias to subject:


 * Kongthin Pearlmich
 * Sarah Thornton

 Ty  00:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

v.Gogh Category cleanup on COM
Hi, as I felt that it would very well be worth while to improve on Commons:Category:Vincent_van_Gogh (and besides, I am going to do a quantity of uploads anyways, having become enthusiastic about Van Gogh Exhibition Vienna 2008 ;)), I recently deposited my ideas on improvement (file names, description pages, sub-categories) on Commons:Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh and started to work on it. Feedback there would be highly appreciated, even in French or German (which, admitteldy, I speak+write more than just "somewhat" better than English or French ;)). --best, --WeHaWoe (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Western painting
Talk moved to Talk:Western_painting to keep discussion in the most relevant place, where it will be available for future editors of the article.  Ty  11:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Automated Visual arts assessment?
I have been assessing visual arts articles, mostly stub and start class articles, as time permits. In doing this I have noticed a few things. First, many article talk pages are still tagged with the Wikiproject sculpture notice, even pages that don't have a VA assessment. Second, there seem to be a large number of visual arts articles that are not tagged, even from my small sample size. Third, there is no priority variable in the template. Fourth, I've noticed that Wikiproject Biography uses a number of bots to automatically assess articles that use stub templates related to their project as stubs, to tag articles in categories related to their project as unassessed, and to automatically match the assessment of other wikiprojects. (For an example of such a bot see User:Kingbotk) The fourth difference may not be as desirable, for I'm sure that WPVA has different criteria than, say, WP biography... but we might want to look into getting a bot for automated tagging and stub assessment, and perhaps for migrating WP sculpture articles into visual arts. I'm not sure if a bot exists for the latter purpose, but oh well.... any thoughts? (Litho) 03:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of these are true. I doubt there is much call for auto-assessment here, or auto-matching to other project's assessments, but auto-tagging, & cleaning-up the old sculpture tags, might be useful. We spend most of our time writing and maintaining articles, & articles only get assessed when people happen to see them. Experience shows that WP:BIO's assessments are often different from ours. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I tagged several dozen VA articles a month or so ago; I also assessed most of them very quickly, without much thought. I think that we might all begin tagging and assessing or reassessing VA articles as we work and encounter them..better we do it; than have some other project do it....Modernist (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

But have you looked at the volume of articles, even under (Category:Artists), that we have to contend with, not to mention articles related to works of art, art movements, etc? I'm not suggesting we have WP:BIO do it for us, just that we have some bots make it easier to begin dealing with the vast bulk of it all. Lithoderm (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a monumental job..a bot might do the initial tagging. I still prefer assessing primarily by members of this project..Modernist (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Assessments are only any use if people then go round improving the worst ones, but everyone here I think knows plenty of articles they would like to improve already, and new ones are all too easy to find. The recent 0.7 selection would have been a moment to improve some key articles, but there just aren't enough hands on deck. We actually have (imo) far too many poor stiubs on very obscure people in several areas, usually taken straight from some old PD source, when much more important articles are missing altogether. Bots (and WP:BIO people) tend just to go by weight, when for many artists the known information is very limited, and a pretty short article can be extremely complete.  Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I'm probably being technical for it's own sake. There are only 183 articles in the Wikiproject sculpture category (well, 116, after I worked on it), so its probably not worth having a bot do it. Anyone else who wants to help migrate them is welcome...

WP sculpture migration- new B-Class articles
A preliminary report: I kept the ratings intact, because most of the articles I shifted to this project were stub or start class, but we have a few new B-class articles that you might want to look over or re-assess.
 * Cancelleria Reliefs (no pictures)
 * Elgin Marbles (probably deserves it)
 * Crouching Venus (start class- could be a B-Class article easily, but need references)
 * Hermes Fastening his Sandal (kind of short, odd camera angle in the single picture)
 * Loggia dei Lanzi (not bad, needs external links perhaps. Needs sections. Has some problems with peacock terms etc "richly decorated" "marvellous" "vivacious" "graceful" "miraculous")

And that's it for B-class articles and above! The rest are stubs or unassessed...Lithoderm (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sculpture is B-class that might go higher..Modernist (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

An Oak Tree
Comments invited at Talk:An_Oak_Tree.  Ty  23:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, have you noticed that An Oak Tree has popped up in Transubstantiation? Not sure if it really belongs there, but if that section is to be kept, it would have to include other examples... Lithoderm (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed that oak trees are popping up all over the place nowadays...  Ty  01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And artworks, not to mention Malevich's masterpiece Black Square. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm and in Western painting there grows an Oak Tree.....or is that a sculpture..Modernist (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or even a glass of water...  Ty  03:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes- nice one, Ty. We wouldn't want to have all of WPVA categorized as Wikipedia Humor...Lithoderm (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. The template's substituted, so it won't generate a category. On the other hand, the way things are going right now...  Ty  12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Victory's Spear and Modernism
Some eyes at this article would be helpful. As much as I try to assume good faith, these kind of edit summaries and  suggest perhaps an agenda at work. The editor is interested in Medieval and Renaissance art and his or her edits there seem fine on those topics. But the edits at Modernism may be problematic. <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">talk</FONT> 22:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if an Oak Tree grows Here as well...a curious new editor with very strong opinions, hmm...Modernist (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at his/her edits at pre-modern articles, there don't appear to be any problems. He/she just seems to really hate modernism and feels the need to interject. I don't want to gang up on this editor, but the edit summaries and haughty attitude suggest some difficulties ahead. The issue of romanticism being a legitimate precursor to, or beginning stages of, modernism will need to be resolved as this editor seems as of yesterday determined to just remove it outright. <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">talk</FONT> 12:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think he/she likes me either? Could it be my name? Modernist (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I especially enjoyed the comment "It could infact, trick the reader into thinking that Modernism is beautiful or attractive, based on a completely unrelated Romantic artwork". And yes, you would be Pre-Modern Enemy #1 with that username. <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">talk</FONT> 12:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see why there should be a problem as long as he/she avoids editorializing and original research, and if criticisms are based on reliable sources and do not do beyond the limits of balance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess my main issue is with the deletions (and reverts) that appear to be agenda-driven. His/her placing of warnings on my talk page to prove a point and the edit summaries mentioned above indicate a decidedly uncivil approach to editing. Having said that, this editor is obviously free to edit wherever they choose. I was just giving a heads-up to other art editors, who really do run the gamut when it comes to interests in art-related topics. It's not like we're some radical modernist (or, gasp! postmodernist) cabal bent on destroying beautiful art. <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">talk</FONT> 13:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I'm not so sure...based on recent goings on.....Modernist (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I had not previously looked at the Modernism article. It is virtually unsourced. It is a large article, on a controversial subject, without sources to support any of its material. Nor, in many cases, is there any attempt to balance statements for NPOV. Basically it seems a good article, but it could use a little work. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Scream
Minor stuff: Recent edits to the article have several times deleted sourced content re: possible meteorological cause for the red sky. Seems to give preference to original research. I've dropped a line to Tyrenius, and am messaging here rather than engaging in an edit war. Thoughts appreciated. JNW (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a clear case of referenced material being removed and the only justification for doing so is OR. I've posted on the article talk page and restored the material to the main text, where it belongs. Further input invited.  Ty  03:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. JNW (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The saga continues. Despite the addition of sourced dissenting opinion, a contributor remains determined to remove the Krakatoa business altogether, ignoring guidelines re: original research . It would be appreciated if others could keep an eye on this. Thanks, JNW (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am watching it although I haven't been around when the changes were made..I'll keep an eye out. There is a rash of this stuff all of a sudden and a lot of us have our hands full...Modernist (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know--thank you. Art seems to be getting more popular, with all the attendant benefits and drawbacks that increased attention entails. JNW (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Icons on wikipedia
It appears that use of visual communication with symbols and icons on wikipedia is under attack. I could use a little help defending them here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) Oicumayberight (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is WP:FORUMSHOPing Gnevin (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've only been to the forums with relevancy to the subject of the controversy. I'm just looking for an expert 2nd opinion, which you obviously don't have. You have no justification for removing illustrations other than you think that they are childish. That's a matter of personal taste, not wikipedia policy. And you are twisting a policy that is mostly about the use of territorial flags instead of generic symbols to back your opinion. You are calling images that are used as examples "decorations" simply because you don't see how they are examples, despite evidence that many foreign language translations use the same images. And you have yet to explain in graphic design terms what is childish about the illustrations that you want removed. You obviously have a problem with illustrations that have any style applied to them regardless of any additional communicative value. I compromised with you in the design article, but now you are overreaching. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I may be the most computer illiterate person participating in this project, and do not understand just what the disagreement is about. Could one of you give an example? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This user keeps removing these icons:


 * {| border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="40%"

! colspan="3" style="background:white;" |

Multimedia contains a combination of content forms:
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear action playlist.png]] || [[Image:Crystal Clear app kaboodle.png]] || [[Image:Crystal 128 camera.png|100px]]
 * Text || Audio || Still Images
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app aktion.png]] || [[Image:Crystal Clear app camera.png]] || [[Image:Crystal Clear app mouse.png|100px]]
 * Animation || Video || Interactivity
 * }
 * ...which have been so effective in the past 2 years that they were reused in all these translations of the article:
 * 
 * Animation || Video || Interactivity
 * }
 * ...which have been so effective in the past 2 years that they were reused in all these translations of the article:
 * 
 * 


 * ...based on the sole opinion that they are "childish," a matter of personal taste, not wikipedia policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion . use of visual communication with symbols and icons on wikipedia is under attack and I could use a little help defending them here are far from neutral Gnevin (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You've not shown evidence of willingness to improve. You've only tried to force your personal taste by removing content that has lived in articles for years without complaint. Removing content is not improving content. I call that an attack. You're not even willing to wait for stronger consensus before removing content. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I refuse to discuss this in 4 places . I will only reply to comments posted at WP:MOSICON Gnevin (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it wouldn't be in your interest to discuss it on a project page were experts on the subject might notice it. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be another user unwilling to wait for resolution here or to explain in graphic design terms why the icons warrant removal. User:Carnildo has removed the icons using the belittling tone of calling them "pretty pictures," see here. The user is also engaged in feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" on the talk page about the meaning of the icons. You can see by the long edit history of the article that neither users have any interest in the article other than to remove icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is now an RFC in Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. What seems biased to me is that multimedia is not a subject exclusively about "Maths, science, and technology." Multimedia actually describes content more than technology, which is more about "art" than any of the above. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Damien_Hirst
Input requested as to whether the photo of Emin should be in the article.  Ty  08:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Native American art
Well, asking for suggestions at Talk:Western painting didn't seem to do much good. Does anyone have an opinion as to whether architecture should be included in the grand overview? The article is very long even in its preliminary form (User:Lithoderm/Native American art), and adding it may be too much...Lithoderm (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion architecture is very important. From Navajo Hogans to Anazazi Mountain pueblos, to Mayan Pyramids, to Plains Indian Teepees to Hopi towns and Kivas and Inuit igloos. The religious significance as well as a sense of the individual tribal culture and art...lots there..maybe a mention and an overview depending on the culture, but definitely include a mention of the style of housing. Modernist (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to leave it, or just have summary paragraphs with links for North, Meso- & South. We already have much better articles, like Mesoamerican architecture on architecture than on art. In some ways there is a case for restricting this one to North America, and adding the Meso & Southern material to Pre-Columbian art, though actually I approve of a "Pan-American" approach myself, but that seems to go against the grain of how all our other stuff is organized. We very badly need a Category:Native American architecture - we have Category:Traditional Native American dwellings for types of tepee etc, but no category joining the Southern sites. I do despair of archaeologists sometimes, and the NRHP or whatever it is bunch are worse.  Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably simple descriptives with links as Johnbod provides above will help and will be alright. Primarily I think it needs mention...Modernist (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Viractualism: Any thoughts on this?
This is a new article. It appears to be original research and and neologism. The term is a creation of Joseph Nechvatal‎ and the article itself seems to be based mainly on his own writings. The other sources are not about the term "viractualism" itself. It should be noted that Nechvatal‎ himself may not be involved, but there do appear to be a number of editors close to him who edit his article and this article was created by one of them. <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">talk</FONT> 12:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Try & make comprehensible, and merge to his article. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, merge to Joseph Nechvatal makes sense..Modernist (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Cybism.  Ty  12:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As an idea "that never was realized", and considering it is strictly original research at this point, I think that Cybism should be deleted. Perhaps a sentence (at the most) can be included at Joseph Nechvatal‎, but there seems to be even less notability to this particular idea. <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">talk</FONT> 13:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, very hard not to agree; an article per thought seems virtually endless...Modernist (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it was the proposed exhibition that wasn't realised, rather than the idea. However, I agree with the above proposals. Merging whatever is necessary (and comprehensible) and redirecting would be the simplest solution.  Ty  13:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that Valueyou (Erica Nechvatal) is intent on exploiting wikipedia for the purposes of promoting Joseph Nechvatal's art and his ideas. I think it would be appropriate if a declaration of interest was made as there is clearly a WP:COI issue. I also noticed that the Systems art, Computer art, Digital artist, and Digital painting articles all feature an image of Nechvatal's work, is this appropriate? Is he that notable? It appears to be promotional but maybe I'm wrong. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I took one image out of another article because there was nothing in the text to relate to it. I don't have so much of a problem with, e.g. a digital image in an article about digital images, when there is not a surfeit from contemporary artists to choose from and he has provided a GFDL one. That has to be taken on an article by article basis, however. And it has to be appropriate.  Ty  16:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the GFDL issue and the limited availability of usable images, it is good that JN has given permission for the use of these images, I would just be cautious about using them widely if notability has not been established. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Having read it a second time, it is interesting, but it appears to be the product of WP:OR. It is almost entirely devoid of secondary sources that refer directly to the subject matter of the article, the observations and comments regarding the concept and the thesis from which it is is taken are largely attributable to the editor who wrote the entry. I think the same can be said for cybism. Have tagged both with relevant notifications. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that I know Joseph Nechvatal - but I am not Erica Nechvatal (That is his X wife!) - as I work in his studio as an archivist. Yes, I have sources at hand. Christiane Paul, in her seminal book Digital Art, Thames & Hudson Ltd. discusses Nechvatal's concept of Viractualism on page 58. I will note that in the text. One of the images she chooses to illustrate that section on Nechvatal is titled: "the birth Of the viractual" (2001). Also, Joe Lewis, in the March 2003 issue of Art in America, pp.123-124 discusses the viractual in his review "Joseph Nechvatal at Universal Concepts Unlimited". John Reed in Artforum Web 3-2004 Critc’s Picks discusses it too in: "#1 Joseph Nechvatal". Frank Popper also write about it in his book: From Technological to Virtual Art, MIT Press, pp. 120. Then there is mention of the concept in "Joseph Nechvatal: Contaminations" a review by Patrick Lichty archived here: The other 3rd party references already cited or on the web and can be checked. Cybism has not been discussed in 3rd party books yet.

May I remove the banner as I add these references? Valueyou (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe this goes some way towards establishing notability and if the article text deals exclusively with what is written in the secondary sources outlined above there are grounds for avoiding a merge. See what general opinion here is on this first. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK good. Can I remove the banners now? And shall I put the Cybism aspect as a sub-division on theViractualism page? Valueyou (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify, it will be necessary to summarise what the secondary sources offer on the subject so the issues arising from you providing a review of JN's ideas can be avoided. On the question of notability perhaps it would be best to wait for the other editors involved in this discussion to comment before removing the related banners. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What the secondary sources offer on the subject is a short discussion of his topic of Viractualism. I have upload the "birth Of the viractual" to the page. I have killed the Cybism page and made a redirct command to Viractualism as I merged that into a sub-heading there. This OK? Can I remove the banners now at Viractualism ?  Valueyou (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there are multiple outstanding WP:OR issues with your entry that must first be addressed.The text must represent what published secondary sources have said on the subject, to go beyond this by adding your own representation of JN's theories is orignal research. Please read the guidelines on this carefully, it is one of the cornerstones of the encyclopedia and should always be adhered to. It is also worth reviewing discussions on the matter of OR. Currently, the article leans heavily in the OR direction. If the published secondary sources do not provide enough information to derive an article-worthy summary, there may then be notability issues, and you will therefore be better off complying with the consensus to merge the essence of this article with the main JN article, but you should still stick to what the secondary sources say. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems like a cul-de-sac as all the information provided came from the books and web pages cited as references. I have written nothing original. I have reported what I found. Can we get other opinions please. Valueyou (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want I can provide a point for point analysis of the citations and the associated content to demonstrate exactly how you have engaged in WP:OR, but that shouldn't really be necessary. It should be obvious to you, if you have indeed looked at the relevant policy on original research, where you are going astray. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you pick a very clear example (with an online ref preferably) and explain the problem. Writing on wiki has different parameters to other places and can take some getting used to. This would give Valueyou a chance to amend the article appropriately. '[[User:Tyrenius|<font

color="#880088">Ty ]]' 01:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK but first remember that: It should be noted, however, that editing articles related to or about yourself, by you or those closely related to you, is strongly discouraged, and you are instead encouraged to discuss potential edits to such articles in the relevant talk page.


 * Can you define "closely related"? That does not apply to me, I think. Valueyou (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

''The basis of the viractual conception is that virtual producing computer technology has become a noteworthy means for making and understanding contemporary art and that this brings artists to a place where one finds the emerging of the computed (the virtual) with the uncomputed corporeal (the actual). This amalgamate — which tends to contradict some central techno clichés of our time - is what Nechvatal calls the viractual.  'The statement above results from the contributing editors analysis of a primary source. The citation points to an entire thesis. Instead the analysis should be attributable to a secondary source. The analysis is therefore WP:OR. '''
 * Example 1:


 * The basis of this is drawn from an article by Dr. Nechvatal himself web-published by a highly respected source CTheory. Please see: I believe I have only reported what I found there. Perhaps the footnote is wrong and should be changed?  Valueyou (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

''Digitization is a key metaphor for viractuality in the sense that it is the elementary translating procedure today. Nechvatal thinks that in every era the attempt must be made anew to wrest the art practice away from conformisms that are about to overcome it.  'Again, the statement above results from the contributing editors analysis of a primary source, but this time the source is WP:SP. The citation points to the self published item. Again, the analysis should instead be attributable to a secondary source. The analysis is therefore WP:OR. '''
 * Example 2


 * I am here closely referencing a line from a speech by Nechvatal at Oberlin College where he indirectly invokes Walter Benjamin. How is that WP:SP? You seem to want to become pernicious with me again. I have "analysized" nothing. Valueyou (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

''For Dr. Nechvatal, the viractual recognizes and uses the power of digitization while being culturally aware of the values of monumentality and permanency — qualities which can be found in some compelling analog art.  'Above statement displays similar analytical problems again. The cited source is again primary. '''
 * Example 3


 * Again, the basis of this line can be found in the article I cited by Nechvatal “Voluptuous Viractualism” published in Simultaneita 01/2003. I believe I have only reported what I found there. Are you suggesting that an article about Walter Benjamin cannot mention anything Walter Benjamin ever said?  You confuse me.  Valueyou (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Finally, a note on the use of primary sources:''Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:''
 * The examples represent one paragraph of text but this type of analysis is evident throughout, the cybism section being the worst offender. What we should have is an overview that is directly attributable to reliable secondary sources.
 * If the editor claims that all of the information is already taken from secondary sources I would like some time to verify this before the tags are removed.
 * In case it should apply note WP:COS This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy.
 *  only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
 *  make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

In summary there are innumerable problematic entries in the article and I'll reiterate that it will be necessary to summarise what the secondary sources offer on the subject so the issues arising from the editor providing a review of JN's ideas can be avoided. And, if the published secondary sources do not provide enough information to derive an article-worthy summary, there may then be notability issues, and you will therefore be better off complying with the consensus to merge the essence of this article with the main JN article, but you should still stick to what the secondary sources say. Semitransgenic (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What consensus? Your shot-gun approach confuses me even more here. You say "innumerable problematic entries". Perhaps others see it differently?  Valueyou (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the secondary sources listed, the exhibition review in Art in America only offers: The work explores, through the amalgamation of body parts, the relationships between the virtual and actual, or the "viractual," in the artist's coinage. In the birth Of the viractual, the central labia lurk beneath a shimmering acrylic surface--as if we were looking through ripples made by Ovid's Salmacis diving into the pool after Hermaphroditus. I think the reviewer's mention of 'viractual' results from having viewed JN's exhibition statement. Semitransgenic (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So what? Lewis saw the show and reviewd it in a major art publication. Valueyou (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I have worked the text's footnotes so as to point citations to 3rd part sources - and clipped some text. Perhaps it is improved? Valueyou (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge executed Valueyou (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Did Lucian Freud really have 40 illegitimate children???
This bizarre "fact" has been on his page for several years. It cites the Sunday Telegraph of a specific date, but I can't find the issue in their online archives. It would be best if this could be either corroborated or removed in accordance with BLP, and my one monograph on the painter doesn't mention it. Can anyone support or refute this? Lithoderm (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounded like bollocks to me, then I Googled this: . When does he find time to paint? JNW (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Guess he couldn't make up his mind, can you imagine his therapist bill? Modernist (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But it does say that it's generally agreed to be an exaggeration. Bollocks indeed! I love how on the side of that page, there's a link to an article called "40 reasons to be British and be Happy" Lithoderm (talk)
 * Yeah, so it can be presented in the article as a likely exaggeration, based on his reputation and behavior. The same kind of rumors have persisted about Klimt, though I've heard numbers ranging from 10 to 50 children. Prolific has many meanings. JNW (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Somethin' to look forward to....sounds like for a guy in his 80s he knows how to have fun...Modernist (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted the reference. By the way, I tried to fix this picture of Freud a while ago, as it was even worse than now, but if Ty or anyone else wants to photoshop it into shape or find a better image, they're welcome to. Lithoderm (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a new version - as in the image displayed here. For earlier versions, go to image history.  Ty  04:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks. The light source is much more consistent. Lithoderm (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found the story in The Sunday Telegraph, 1 September 2002. See Talk:Lucian_Freud. I don't think the Telegraph archive goes back that far, but it's on newsuk.co.uk (subscription or via membership of some UK public libraries).  Ty  05:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Galleries
More talk at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. It is another indication that galleries of "non-free" images are not safe.  Ty  23:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ty, what is Jimmy Wales position? Can the Visual Arts project protect articles within its scope? .....Modernist (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No way. The community as a whole has complete precedence, and project resistance to that can, in extremis, lead to the disbanding of the project, though that's not likely to occur with a major topic. The project's job is to implement wider consensus in its specialised area, though obviously it can seek to influence that consensus with particular arguments in the appropriate venue. What it cannot do is form a power bloc to achieve localised consensus to thwart the wider consensus. That will only lead to a bad end.

I believe there does need to be more latitude for VA articles, and have cited Kat Walsh on this. However, there cannot be unlimited latitude. There is always a tension on wikipedia between provision of knowledge and the onus from the Foundation for free content. There have been attempts for mass deletion of non-free VA images, which I have opposed. However, I think that there is too much non-free in use at the moment. This will inevitably be addressed, and it would be better to be pre-emptive by reducing it to a minimum.

For example, in a general historical article comparing different schools, then Impressionism (if it were still in copyright) would need one image, because they all painted the same way with dabs. One image will show that. There is no need to show the subtle varieties of dabs, because the purpose is to contrast it with other schools, which painted differently, e.g. cubism, where again one example would suffice to show the essential difference. There may be a case for including an important exception, such as Degas who was an Impressionist, who didn't dab. With Pop art, then a key image is sufficient to illustrate commercial imagery used in Fine Art (say, Warhol's Soup Cans), maybe another for collage and another for someone like Peter Blake who painted traditionally.

In the article specifically about the school, where variations betwen different artists are examined, then the same principle applies, keeping it to the minimum necessary, rather than the optimum desirable. There is a difference.

This causes an imbalance, where out of copyright (OOC) images in a wide historical survey can be used plentifully. Solutions will have to be found. I suggest cutting down the out of copyright ones to achieve that balance. Then in articles on specific periods, the OOC images can be used plentifully, and the articles on periods in copyright will not have so many, but the difference will not be directly contrasted, so will be masked.

The best course of action is for the project to take on the responsibility of attending to this, before someone forces it to happen. If necessary, inviting someone like J Milburn in to work with us. There will have to be some painful decisions made to avoid even worse ones in the future.

Some lateral thinking might help, such as the use of tables with more directed text to go with images, as it seems the use of non-free galleries by itself is an anathema to some people. It is certainly harder to justify.

 Ty  04:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly I think we've made progress from where we were say two years ago. I will have to think about what I can do..I find galleries to be streamlined and efficient as compared to tables for example..I'm willing to find a solution....using inline illustrations helps, as discussed before keeping the galleries small and streamlined was recommended as well...Modernist (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Take History_of_painting: there are 6 images of Surrealism in a general survey article. I would opt for maybe two: the hyper-real (Dali/Tanguy/Magritte axis) and the "abstract" (Masson/Arp). That gives the reader a grasp of the fundamentals.

Slightly different point: I think the whole of the 20th century section should be split off into its own stand-alone article. In that case, I'd go for three images (adding Ernst maybe, as in between the other two). In an article dedicated to Surrealism, then individual artists can have an image.  Ty  06:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As to that point..it's complicated, I'm loathe to separate and isolate the 20th century from the 19th century because they interrelate profoundly; the need for textual mentions of every image because of the Fair Use requirements necessitates the added length of the 20th century section. As I've said before the texts of earlier sections need to be expanded..Modernist (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 19th and 20th can be split off as a unit as "Modern art" or some such and those sections shortened in the main historical overview. I've agree that the earlier sections need to be expanded, but if and when they are, then the article will be huge, so all the sections will need to be split off per WP:Summary style anyway. It would be useful to construct the articles with that in mind. The balance of the article cannot be distorted because of FU requirements. It should be the other way round, i.e. write the text, see what is mentioned, then choose images accordingly.  Ty  06:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, to many image specialists, galleries and non-free immediately conjure up visions of stand-alone galleries full of sports club logos or stills from anime etc, with little or no text on the images. I think we have to keep making the case that there is a respectable way of having non-free images in galleries, with sufficient commentary to justify fair-use. Johnbod (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Foundation requirements are still that it is minimal use, so that needs to be demonstrable.  Ty  07:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Although as dense as those images appear; they cover both Dada and the Duchampian impact on 20th century art; as well as Surrealism in it's various different aspects. Both Dali and Magritte are important as visual interpreters of psychoanalysis and Freudian symbolism which had an enormous impact on the art of the 20th century; as is Ernst, Masson and Miro..crucial for the impact on later American painting, perhaps Arp, Tanguy can be let go..I'd like to find a solution..Modernist (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm stating is how I think a wider consensus will evaluate the non-free image use. Dali and Magritte in your statement above both show the same point, namely "visual interpreters of psychoanalysis and Freudian symbolism". Therefore only one is needed and the point is illustrated. That to my mind is the kind of precision evaluation necessary to cut down on non-free content in a way which will safeguard what is used.  Ty  01:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did we ever go any farther with the "periodic table of art" above? It seems like it could work. I suppose that, as a compromise, we could push for a change in the policy on using external links to images... really, a bunker mentality is to be avoided... I notice Betacommand was commenting at that discussion- his attitudes on fair use are nothing if not extremeLithoderm (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am in accord and I'll give thought to those suggestions. The Table option is a radical possibility but seems viable in relationship to the Friedrich article..and it might be a viable solution in the long survey articles as a companion or sister article..Modernist (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Neotu
Any chance of a bit of gentle guidance in the development of Neotu Gallery? It looks notable, but the creator and primary editor has self-identified as the gallery's co-founder and is a trifle resistant to concerns about conflict of interest issues and general content: see WP:COIN. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Leonardo da Vinci article
A request for comment has been made at the Leonardo da Vinci article, which is supported by this WikiProject. The question for the RFC is "Does the praise in the lead section constitute peacock terminology?" Please visit Talk:Leonardo da Vinci if you would like to comment. Papa November (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC

Sarah Thornton
Noticed this has been recently edited to include multiple book review snippets from various newspapers, is this appropriate? To me it seems blatantly self-promotional. I believe WP:COI editing may be taking place. Any views on this? Semitransgenic (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree.  Ty  15:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions how to address this? Is there actually anything wrong with using review excerpts like this? I can't find any guidelines on this, they are effectively secondary sources, right? Semitransgenic (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out Nfc, also WP:UNDUE. There seems to be inappropriate emphasis on one part of the article, namely material promoting the latest book. This does not conform to WP:NPOV. Revise at will to bring it into line with a balanced overview.  Ty  03:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii
I've copied the following from my talk page. The complete text is in this thread.  Ty  03:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

start of copied talk

[start of excerpt] To be blunt: I've been babysitting many visual arts stub and start-class articles created by User:Wmpearl who has openly refused to work with WP:HAWAII and doesn't care about proper formatting, inline citations, image size, etc. So, if you are a member of the visual arts project and are interested in helping improve visual arts-related articles, (and there's quite a lot of them) please ask your project to review the contribution history of this particular user. Otherwise, I'm going to start de-tagging them from WP:HAWAII, since this isn't our primary focus and nobody from your project appears to be helping to maintain these articles. In fact, many of them are not even tagged by your project and seem to exist in some kind of netherworld. To conclude, if you consider your project "active", then please review this user's contributions, assess them as necessary, and start using User:WolterBot to help sort tagged articles in that set. Since you are apparently a representative of the visual arts project, perhaps you could discuss this with your fellow members when you have some free time. [end of excerpt] Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

comment sorry to butt in; but I have been working regularly on pages and images that User:Wmpearl uploads....I've been reformatting sizes and other material for what seems to be years now. His uploads are crude but extremely valuable..and I know other editors like User:JNW know his work..I wish there were more like him...He quietly gets his work done...Modernist (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need some help? I just looked at the latest batch of contributions, most of which are untagged by the visual arts project and contain improper formatting, huge images walling in text, no inline references, etc.  The user has been asked repeatedly not to do this and leaves the work to others. For example: Maya_Cohen_Levy, and many, many, more.  Furthermore, this is a huge problem with copyright tagging and violations, and many of their image uploads have been deleted. I haven't even touched the problem of copyvio text, which cannot be easily ascertained as many of the sources that appear in the reference sections are esoteric and hard to get a hold of from the average library.  The user does not communicate effectively with others and is not interested in any policies or guidelines.  I could go on and on, but hopefully, you have got the point by now.  Or not?  I'm not sure which articles you have worked on, but most seem to be untagged, unformatted, and lacking inline citations, and I must say, I seriously doubt the fair use exemptions being claimed will hold.  I have tried (in the past) to work with this user in good faith, and they have told me to my face that they don't care.  It would be great if the visual arts project could take care of these articles so that others don't have to worry about them. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

End of copied talk


 * Modernist is correct that I am familiar with Wmpearl's edits, but I have not run across his contributions lately. My experience was that of noticing his addition of sculpture images to numerous articles, always enlarged to 300 or 400px, so that they overcrowded page and text. I reduced some of them in size. My impression was that concerns of format and style were largely ignored. It sounds like Viriditis and Modernist have accurately described the pros and cons of the edits. JNW (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of a similar incident (he continues): About 2 years ago a contributor began dumping his own images of artworks into articles--if he had 30 photos of works by Delacroix, say, he would add a gallery with all the images to the artist's page. I reverted these, and asked him to add them to the commons, explaining that such galleries in articles ought to be selective. He replied that he had thousands of images, and shouldn't an encyclopedia be all-inclusive? In the end, he stopped adding the images altogether, and as far as I know he never contributed them to the commons. It's a sticky one, when someone has goods, but insists on sharing on their terms only, manual of style be damned. In the end, I suppose it's a matter of consensus as to whether such gifts are worth the trouble. JNW (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR I think that this would be a much less interesting article if you crowded all of the images into a gallery- compare it with my revised version of Maya_Cohen_Levy. Someone needs to archive his talk page, by the way. <FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">Litho</FONT><FONT COLOR="#464646">derm</FONT> 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In principle, I like the format of Kikukawa Eizan. The issue there is one that's been thoroughly hashed out in the past, that of appropriate size. I know that Modernist and Johnbod have engaged in extensive discussion re: proper image sizes, and they would recall the conclusions better than do I . JNW (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Virititus or whatever his name is, seems to have a major problem with the Visual Arts project, apparrently we don't jump to it quick enough to his liking...although I rather like User:Wmpearl's work...WP:IAR indeed...too much bureaucracy and not enough WP:UCS...Modernist (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to clear up any misconceptions propagated by Modernist, my user name is Viriditas and I have no problem with this project. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a big relief..So you only have problems with : ? Modernist (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:notability
I just took a look at the Maya Cohen Levy article, and do not see anything that establishes WP:notability. Does WikiProject Visual arts have any standards for what establishes an artist's notability? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference to an exhibition of work at the Tel Aviv museum, and the publication of an accompanying catalog, help to establish notability. More sources and refs wouldn't hurt. JNW (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As for standards, there is Notability (artists), an old proposal which did not attain consensus. The guidelines which would apply are listed under WP:creative. JNW (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All I find about her exhibition at the Tel Aviv Museum is on the talk page. True, the caption to an image is marked Tel Aviv Museum of Art, but that does not indicate that there was a one person show, or that there is work in the permanent collection. The way it is now, the article justifies an AfD. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is this link, which references the exhibition there in 2000. JNW (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the point. It is not artists that get deleted, just their articles. If the individual is notable, there should be something in the article to show that....instead if pointless stuff about what she studied in high school. We are talking about articles not artists. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point is well taken, and not missed. The article would require editing. I am not arguing for its inclusion, just noting a museum exhibition in response to your question re: notability. JNW (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I gave you a hard time. Frequently I would try to fix up such an article, but not if I am unsympathetic to the content. I will let someone who actually thinks her stuff is good do the work her article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not my cup of tea, either; right now I'm writing a column about. My natural sympathies may be regarded as happily anachronistic. JNW (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found and added some refs. More could be found. There would also be further ones in Hebrew. She is undoubtedly notable. This should not be taken as any reflection on my evaluation of her work either way... Stuff about High School etc is usually included as a component of the person's early life, but obviously it should be followed by their later life and activities, which have gained them notability.  Ty  17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tyrenius. A great contribution, as usual. JNW (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability, part II
I've weighed in several times on Dom Martin, and would appreciate input here from other contributors to the visual arts, at the very least so as to provide a broader range of comments. JNW (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of WMPearl thread
I notice, also, that about 50% of the messages on wmpearl's talk page are from User:Melesse, who seems to have been going around in the last few days reducing the image sizes of a lot of non-free art in a rather mechanical manner. Some of them concern me, like this and this, which are PD in the US, as they were made before 1923. The image size did not need to be reduced at all in those cases. I only did a quick search of her contribs, but there might be others as well. I understand that we might have to give ground with the general consensus against non-free galleries, but reducing image sizes willy-nilly won't cut it. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and see this category: if anyone wants to attempt a rescue of any of these. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion none should be deleted. I am a bit at a loss trying to figure out how to stop the deletions.....Modernist (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking the first one Image:'Alpha-Pi', acrylic on canvas painting by Morris Louis, 1960, Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg - it is in 5 articles, which is probably too many, and is not specifically discussed in, or even I think referred to in the text of Morris Louis, where it is surely capable of a solid FU rationale, plus there it was at 400px (I reduced to 300 just now). Plus there are the usual games with the wording of the rationale(s), which seem to be held to some standard never declared anywhere I've ever been able to find... Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue for 400px. 300 starts to distort the original by bringing the paint runs too close to each other. There is no magic number of 300.  Ty  13:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Working on the problem...here we go again..Modernist (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Melesse  Ty  13:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the Louis lead image is fine at 400px..Modernist (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added dispute tags to all the images recently tagged for deletion as well as rationales on the talk pages disputing the deletion of so many important visual art images..including Mark Rothko, Jean Dubuffet, Morris Louis, Sam Francis, Giorgio Morandi, Balthus, Louise Bourgeois, Richard Pousette-Dart, Robert Delaunay, Paul Klee, Karel Appel, Tony Smith (sculptor), Anselm Kiefer, and several others....All are important and all have valid Fair Use Rationales and none should be deleted...Some like Delaunay, Klee, Dubuffet, Rothko, Louis, and Morandi and a few others are particularly important and historical examples. Modernist (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The images aren't tagged for deletion. What is tagged for deletion is the earlier larger size of the image, for which a smaller version has now been uploaded. See Rothko image. The first version was 700 px largest dimension, which I think is too big. The new one is 300 px max dimension, which I find too small as it doesn't allow his technique (e.g. of feathered edges) to be seen properly, and this is integral to the reason for using it in the first place. It is not just about an image of certain colours in an arrangement. I suggest in such as case that an intermediate size is uploaded and both the existing versions deleted.  Ty  14:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the reduced image size is an improvement...My impression is that the tags will lead to deletion, can the tags be removed on the smaller uploaded images? And why weren't they removed after the smaller images were uploaded..? Confusion reigns in my mind..Modernist (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The tags say - This image or media may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, or which could be adequately covered with text alone. Unless it is determined to be irreplaceable, the image will be deleted after Sunday, 30 November 2008. Please do not remove this tag. I am disputing the deletions...as above..Modernist (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. This is somewhat confusing. See User_talk:Melesse.  Ty  17:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting the above images is plainly unacceptable..They all have Fair Use Rationales, and are all important images....Modernist (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And then there are the Louise Bourgeois sculpture and the Wesselmann sculpture. It's my understanding that you can safely upload images of outdoor sculpture as PD, like. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In UK and some countries yes, in US no.  Ty  00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * She's also reduced and tagged Erich Heckel's Portrait of a Man and Emil Nolde's Prophet, two of the most important expressionist woodcuts: both of these were made before 1923, and so are PD in the US, like Münch's The Scream. I see somewhat of a COI issue, with these notices coming from a self-proclaimed "avid fan of pretty art (such as anime or manga)". Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not much I can say that J Milburn hasn't said in the earlier discussion. I must echo his concerns about the "stock copy-paste rationales." I have no doubt that each image is historically significant, but you must describe how. The fair use rules are very clear that a fair use image is not acceptable when free images are available or can be made. In the case of artists, a valid fair use rationale could be written, but in the case of articles discussing a particular style or movement (color field, abstract expressionism, etc.), free alternatives are in fact available: a Wikipedia user could make a painting and release it under a free license, or seek out a painter that would do that. Melesse (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a point of information, Non-free 2D art allows "for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs", so you are wrong to assert it is not a legitimate fair use. If a wikipedia user makes an image that copies an original, it is a copyright violation. It it does not copy an original, then it is not an example of the school in question, but an example of something different, namely an interpretation of the school by someone who was not an original exponent of it.  Ty  02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you're slightly misinterpreting the statement. If I understand correctly, that covers images that show say, Magritte made surrealist paintings. Your argument suggests that the inverse is also justified: Art like Magritte's is surrealist, which is how the images I tagged are primarily being used. I'm not suggesting any user should copy an existing painting because as you said, it would be a derivative work and therefore a copyright violation. I don't recall placing a tag on any artworks that were used as a representation of a school of art, but representations of artistic styles or movements. I'm going to use color field as an example. An artist could make a painting in that style and release it under a free license. Melesse (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Such a work would not be the most important representative of a "school"(see below), and would almost certainly not be notable, by Wikipedia's standards. (I can imagine that there are plenty of artists out there who would love to promote themselves in that way, which would lead to inevitable COI) The images in visual arts article are not merely decorations, nor even illustrations of principles outlined in the text- they are the subject of the text. I uploaded the illustration on Relief printing, but a style of painting is not a mechanical method. And I believe you are mistaken as to a school of art; in this context it means the same thing as a movement or style, like the school of Paris. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, its a ridiculous argument. Saying that someone else could do it also implies that a value judgment has been made of the work itself. And as that applies to abstract expressionism, you're also dead wrong: Fractal Analysis of Jackson Pollock's Paintings, from the Scientific American.You can't just drip paint over a canvas and upload it to WMC as a replacement for Lavender Mist because the paintings are unique, and can be attributed to him by analysis of Fractal patterns in the drips. Admittedly, some of the errors you made in tagging PDUS art were partly the fault of Wmpearl's use of an unnecessary FU rationale, but you should know that works created before January first, 1923 are PD in the US. I've corrected all of those I could find. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a completely ridiculous argument, and I am happy that most of this tagging seems to have been based on the basic misunderstanding that this is possible. It might be possible to imitate styles in this way in the world or manga & anime (though I rather doubt it) but is certainly not in the case of gallery art, as WP policy clearly recognises. Accept no imitations! Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall tagging any work from Pollock, but if I did indeed, then you should add that to the image's rationale to show its significance. The rationales in place now are all far too generic. Melesse (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Melesse. The work deleted from Katherine Nash was irreplaceable. She is dead. I was thinking I was alone until I saw this thread. Would it be possible to restore this image along with the others please? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete that image, I only placed the tag for another administrator to review it, and they saw fit to delete it. User:PhilKnight deleted that particular image, I suggest you ask them to un-delete it instead. Melesse (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea of replacing the Mark Rothko with a knocked out yesterday example of abstract expressionism or color field painting is beyond response. Likewise for the other original and historically important encyclopedic works. The Fair Use Rationales can be amended, and to ask for amendments to those rationales - is rational, to throw the images out - is throwing the baby out with the bath water....In most cases the Fair Use Rationales are in place and basically describe what most needs to be described. If there are specific clauses to which you object then indicate on the talk pages and those objections will be addressed...Modernist (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V demands the use of established historical images. Who's to say that a specially-created image is an example of a style? It's pure WP:OR.  Ty  01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While I stand by everything that I have said previously, I think that a thorough audit of twentieth century artworks needs to  be made. I don't mean deleting any images, and I don't mean arbitrarily reducing the size of everything that has an FU tag on it. Although I hate for this to be a distraction from actually writing articles, I have noticed the extent of the problem from just a small sample of Die Brücke artists. For example, the commons category for Kirchner should not exist, as he died in 1938. The images there should be taken down and re-uploaded to en.wikipedia. (Wait, it's 2008. I'm making a fool of myself here) So of the 4 artworks in the articles on Kirchner and Rotluff, 2 were correctly placed and tagged, one was mistakenly tagged as FU, and one of them is on commons when it shouldn't be (a Wmpearl upload,  incidentally). We need to make certain of which images should be tagged as Fair Use before we go about making the rationales more specific... Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a bad example of incorrect uploading to commons, but surely this shouldn't be on  commons, as Vlaminck died in 1958. There are many more such  examples,  I'm sure.  Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some curious cases, too, like  The Bride... by  Duchamp, which gives a range of dates ending in 1923. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you were right in the first place about Kirchner. It becomes PD on 1 January 2009, the beginning of the next full year 70 years after death. However, Commons is not, strictly speaking, our problem - it is Commons' problem, and relevant issues should be addressed there and not on the transcluded page on wikipedia.  Ty  00:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A review of images is always useful, but needs to be done with due consideration, not blanket actions. Image size needs to be considered for each individual image, so that the size used is not larger than needed, but remains large enough to retain essential features, which may, for example, include brushwork or fine detail. A work of visual art is not just the picture, but also the means by which the picture was created, or the sculpture etc.  Ty  01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been using this account to conduct an initial cleanup (I'm another Lithoderm sock, sorry for the confusion). You can check its contribs if you want to make sure I've been going about this properly. First I went over Wmpearl's contribs back through early 2007. It seems that he tagged everything he uploaded to WP with a fair use tag. I then began to go over the survey articles (History of Painting, Modern art, etc). I'm not shrinking any images yet, and I don't intend to unless absolutely necessary. I've just been correcting PDUS art that was incorrectly tagged by the uploader as FU, and if Melesse shrunk the image that was mistakenly tagged, I reverted that as well. OfOrebOrOfSinai (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern is that they will start to delete these images without discussion. I've tagged as many images as I've found that have been tagged, with a "do not delete template"..I hope that they will discuss before deleting..Modernist (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest listing on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts in the images for deletion section (currently commented out) to get wider attention, and putting the LVD tag on the image talk page.  Ty  01:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image deletions

 * Firstly, the rationales are completely inadequate, for example, in most cases item 3 is meaningless. Secondly, there is a wildly excessive use of non-free images. I think the best course of action is to delete all of the images, and then start again. Maybe, possibly, one or two images could be restored, used in an article with a rationale that actually makes sense. But the current situation is so far away from being acceptable, I think deleting them all should be the first step. PhilKnight (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an outrageously erroneous opinion...none should be deleted, Fair Use Rationales can be rewritten..which one did you refer to? Modernist (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rationales should be written for images because the image is truly needed in the article, not because they are already there. In the case of articles with large galleries where perhaps only a few of the images are required, removing the gallery and then making a judgement about what images are required based on what is in the article is a sensible course of action. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How dare you delete the Morris Louis without discussion...that delete tag was disputed; and discussion on the talk page was called for as well as discussion - clearly by other editors..How dare you delete the Sam Francis; and or other images...Modernist (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All of you have different rationales, none of you are correct and basically your opinions are totally wrong...Modernist (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Mark Rothko, Morris Louis and Sam Francis lead images...have been deleted - looks like high school; ...Modernist (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Every image has been deleted by Phil Knight who should be recalled...His unilateral action without discussion is outrageous administrative overaction....Modernist (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just plain stupid in my opinion, now 2 Paul Klee's, Giorgio Morandi, Mark Rothko, Morris Louis, Jean Dubuffet,, Sam Francis, a Balthus, Louise Bourgeois, Richard Pousette-Dart, Karel Appel, Tony Smith (sculptor), Anselm Kiefer, and several other important images....have been deleted..it's a vendetta-like assault on WmPearls's uploads...seems vindictive, childish, and wrong to me. Modernist (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead image for Paul Klee is gone too... this flies in the face of any reasonable compromise. Works of Visual art are the basis of an artist's notability. I thought the issue that the opposite party was concerned with was the overuse of FU images of art. This is truly ridiculous-- why is this so warped? The images could have been confined to the article on the painting...
 * Popular bands are not notable solely on the basis of what their album covers look like, so why is FU acceptable in cases like this? I don't see any discussion of the album cover in the article- just the music. And Justin Timberlake did not make that cover, either. Likewise FU images of people for biographical articles- they are not notable for what they look like. And what about logos?? Companies and sports teams are not notable for what their insignia look like. When will wikiproject football be heckled over not discussing the historical significance of the Cleveland Browns helmet?? Oh, it's replaceable all right-- LOOK! it's the Cleveland Browns uniform! I can tell exactly what the helmet looks like. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Works by Paul Klee, Giorgio Morandi, Mark Rothko, Morris Louis, Jean Dubuffet,, Sam Francis, Balthus, Louise Bourgeois, Richard Pousette-Dart, Karel Appel, Tony Smith (sculptor), Anselm Kiefer, Kenneth Noland, David Gilhooly, James Brooks (painter), Charles Arnoldi, Larry Poons, Herbert Ferber, Robert Arneson, and Mimmo Paladino should be returned immediately...Modernist (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If J. Milburn, who is so concerned about FU in art articles, is able to explain to me why this: Image:Andrew Johnston- One Voice.jpg is any different from the lead image to the Paul Klee article, I would be very surprised. It's in an Infobox, the image is not discussed anywhere in the article, etc etc. He gives this rationale: Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for.Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the artist's providing graphic design services to music concerns and in turn marketing music to the public. Why does an artwork by an artist, who is known solely for his visual creations, not comply with, "It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for." Furthermore it is several times removed from the work that this singer is known for; it is only "the primary visual image associated with the work". I am no fan of boy sopranos, but do I show up at WPAlbums crying foul? Discuss this image in the article-- how is the image important to his music? Ummm ummm it shows he's a boy soprano? We dont need his face to tell us that. Wellll, it helps the viewer identify the album.... It is a vocal work, are you not more likely to remember the name of the album?? And on that wise, what are you more likely to remember- the title of a work or what it looks like? Everyone knows what Jackson Pollock's paintings look like, but can you name offhand the title of one of his works? The disproportionately stringent insistence upon FU rationales in Visual arts articles makes no sense to me-- here of all places the rationale should be largely self apparent- what is it that artists do, after all? Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And please, don't reply with WP:WTF acronyms like WP:CIVIL. I have every right to be indignant, as do we all. The nom for deletion was clearly disputed, and the admin's edit summary was "non-controversial cleanup". If you want the articles to be expanded, then leave us in peace to write VA articles, instead of insulting us with the "come and get some" of a deletion discussion when you've already made up your mind. I will say nothing further about this: there are articles to write. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's User:Philknight who deleted the images above...Although User:J Milburn is currently deleting an Ellsworth Kelly here: at least this is up for discussion....whereas PhilKnight unilaterally deleted those paintings without discussion and I think perhaps this is an administrator who has misused and abused his editing privileges...Modernist (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but he appears to be Sancho Panza to Phil Don Quixote. I'm trying to make the larger point of how ridiculous this is... I could repeat myself again in several other ways: A Parable- the judge is walking through the galleries of a juried exhibit, when he suddenly comes to gallery where there is nothing on the walls. Instead there is an artist sitting on the floor, shuffling through several pages of paper. "Has your work not arrived yet?", asks the exhibit judge, thinking that perhaps it is the shipping contract that the artist is perusing. "No," replies the painter, "I haven't made any artwork for months, but I have here for you a 10 page written essay with critical commentary upon my past works, with a biography of myself, and my influence upon popular culture." Now what are the artist's chances of winning that contest? Has he established his importance as a visual artist, which depends upon his visual art? Likewise what would one make of a silent concert, with only a young man standing on stage? His appearance does not establish his notability. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not find PhilKnight's actions acceptable, nor his suggestion of further mass deletions as a unilateral action lacking consensus. I request that he starts to act collegiately with other editors, who have spent time on these articles and have considerable knowledge of the subject, which he seems to lack. Deleting the key image of an artwork in an artist's article is ridiculous. Even Melesse who added the deletion template to Image:'Magenta, Black, Green on Orange', oil on canvas painting by Mark Rothko, 1947, Museum of Modern Art.jpg stated "It's justified for fair use on Mark Rothko's article." The deletion template was therefore in error. PhilKnight has nevertheless deleted it, without making any conscientious enquiry into its use. He should correct his mistake.  Ty  03:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, his nomination of the Nash (see below), where he has not chosen to comment subsequently, despite a lengthy debate, suggests a basic failure to understand what visual arts articles are about. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not think that me and PhilKnight are working together on this issue- I do not generally delete images, merely nominate them. Me and PhilKnight have not been in contact about this issue at all- I have no opinion on PhilKnight's actions, and as I said elsewhere to Modernist, if he has concerns about the actions, they should be raised with PhilKnight. If anyone has any concern about my actions, please contact me. Members of this project have raised concerns about my actions in the past, and I have tried to work with those concerns so that there is no appearance of unilateral action, or of me imposing my interpretation of policy on anyone, which is what appears to be the concern with PhilKnight. Don't just lump all editors who try to work closely with our non-free content guidelines into one common "enemy". I do not in any way oppose the use of non-free material, I just oppose its overuse, or use when it is not necessary. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

PhilKnight

 * This is part of my dialogue with User:J Milburn earlier tonight at Talk:Color Field Modernist (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a disgraceful assault and you know it...Modernist (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry? J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Every deleted image had a do not delete tag, and a discussion was called for not unilateral action by Phil Knight..I think he should be recalled..Modernist (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has nothing to do with PhilKnight, but rather the images on this article. If you believe that PhilKnight has behaved in an inappropriate manner, I reccomend you raise the issue with him on his talk page. However, please note that the tags you used are non-binding- just because they are there, does not mean that the images cannot be deleted. If PhilKnight has acted inappropriately, it is because the images should have been kept, not because they were tagged. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The images should have been kept..I'm considering counting to 1000 before adding anything to that particular talk page...Modernist (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's probably the best bet. Getting angry and saying something you will later regret will not help matters. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This all seems like administrative abuse of power to me...Modernist (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Among the most egregious deletions are those in which they were the only example of the artists work and/or the only good example of the artists work. Those include Jean Dubuffet, Paul Klee, Giorgio Morandi, Richard Pousette-Dart, Mark Rothko, Morris Louis (important example), James Brooks (painter) - from the Tate, Karel Appel, Charles Arnoldi among others.Modernist (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While I'm not convinced there is an automatic entitlement for an image of the artist's work to be used in a biography article, I think the use is at least plausible, so probably shouldn't be removed under a speedy delete process. Accordingly, I've restored:
 * Image:'Symphony No. 1, The Transcendental', oil on canvas painting by Richard Pousette-Dart, 1941-42, Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg for use in Richard Pousette-Dart
 * Image:'Boon' oil on canvas painting by James Brooks, 1957, Tate Gallery.jpg for use in James Brooks (painter)
 * Image:'Natura Morta', oil on canvas painting by Giorgio Morandi, 1956, private collection.jpg for use in Giorgio Morandi
 * Image:'Magenta, Black, Green on Orange', oil on canvas painting by Mark Rothko, 1947, Museum of Modern Art.jpg for use in Mark Rothko
 * PhilKnight (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

list of Images Phil Knight needs to restore

 * I appreciate your restoring some of the images that the bot deleted yesterday. - These also are particularly important that need to be restored - Jean Dubuffet, (the only image of his work), Paul Klee, (the lead in his article), Karel Appel, Charles Arnoldi, (single images), Mimmo Paladino, Larry Poons, and the Morris Louis - the lead in his article. Lest I forget - Balthus, Nam June Paik, Sam Francis, Herbert Ferber, Anselm Kiefer Louise Bourgeois, Tony Smith (sculptor) and the others need restoration as well. Thank you.Modernist (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to this comment - While I'm not convinced there is an automatic entitlement for an image of the artist's work to be used in a biography article, I think the use is at least plausible, etc. - indicates that you had no business deleting any of those images in the first place - and it looks like it was done in a vindictive way...a show of no spirit of WP:GF..many of the arguments above indicated the value and importance of the images. There was no justification for their removal whatsover..no dialogue just unilateral action..Modernist (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And there still is this - User:J Milburn is currently deleting an Ellsworth Kelly here: at least this is up for discussion....and before I forget a Maurice Vlaminck was deleted last night also..from commons. Modernist (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Images of works in leads

 * I appreciate the need for images of the artist's work in a complete article (note, though, that a complete article would also include discussion and commentary of the work) but I question the need for images of their work in the lead. The articles are biographies, and so should feature an image of the artist in the lead. This is the same as how an article on a singer would not begin with a sample of their music or an image of their album cover, and how an article on an author would not start with an extract from their novel or an image of its cover. An article on a specific style (or, obviously, on a specific work) would probably have need for images of the work in the lead, but a biography should begin with an image of the subject. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Some painters simply prefer to lead with their work in public while remaining personally private and basically behind the scenes...I'm sure Kelly would prefer his work in the article more than a picture of himself. Although if the work is presented with enough depth than perhaps a portrait would be fine....Painters are not necessarily like performers.. Modernist (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was the case that there was no possible image of the artist, then there would be no harm in having no picture in the lead. The images of the paintings are going to be of most use to the reader when placed next to where they are discussed. A lot of people we have biographies for on Wikipedia are essentially private people who prefer to stay out of the limelight, but we still include images of them if possible. Note that we don't really have any obligation to write the article as the subject wants. Though an image of the work is probably more important than an image of the artist, I don't think it belongs in the lead. This is as much an issue of the manual of style as of the non-free content guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree with you..If I go to an article about Willem de Kooning, or Franz Kline, or Mark Rothko, or Hans Hofmann the first thing I want to see is the paintings. It's all about the work...The portrait images are ok; but your comment then there would be no harm in having no picture in the lead is totally off the mark..Modernist (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An image in the lead should be of the subject of the article, not of their work. These are biographies- articles discussing the style or the work should be led with images of works. This is even more important in articles where the works themselves are not free, as non-free images should be placed next to where they are discussed, not simply where they look prettiest. (I'll use the example again, as it is the area where I am probably most familiar-) The most significant thing about a musician is not the way that they look, but their work. Heck, with any biography (with the possible exception of models/beauty queens and the like) it is the subject's work that makes them significant, rather than their appearance, but, as we are writing biographies, we lead with an image of the subject. Can you really say that a complete biography does not include an image of the subject? J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, these are a different animal..These are biographies of artists..In most cases short shrift is paid to ordinary biography; and it's a biography of their work..It's about when Kandinsky or Mondrian painted the first abstraction; or moved to primary colors; or started a movement with geometric objects. No one knows or really pays attention to their personal lives; except in very brief passage - he married so and so in 1926 etc. Unless it's Picasso or Matisse or even Pollock and the public fascination is increased..No these are artist biographies and they must be all about the work, - really...that's the point. Modernist (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The same is true of obscure musicians- the only thing of any real interest is their music. I do not see why biographies of painters should be treated any differently. Where do we draw the line? Software developers should have images of their software, as no one ever talks about their personal lives? Even if we ignore the view that articles should have images of their subjects rather than the work of their subjects, the point remains that it is difficult for a fair use image of a work to be justified in a lead section- a lead will inevitably not go into the detail necessary for a non-free image, and if the image is justified at all, it should be placed next to the text that justifies it. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are these arguments meant seriously? I do hope not. How would you illustrate music? A shot of the score? A pack-shot for software? Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Music could be illustated with audio clips, as it often is, and software could be illustrated with screenshots, as it often is. I am trying to draw a comparison to show how odd the view that paintings should be used in leads like this seems to me. My point is that musicians are known for their music, and software developers are known for their software, but the main illustration in the biographies of these people will generally be an image of the person (or nothing, if one has not been uploaded). J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Audio clips are not images, and screenshots of software are not very likely to add much to the readers understanding, in my view. The case is completely different with artists. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The key here is Visual artists..and most really aren't as obscure as all that at least not to us. Jean Dubuffet is a superstar..Most people don't know what he looked like, most people never heard of him or even know his work...but he is a significant superstar in the Visual Arts community..The art speaks in the Visual Arts...although I'll grant you guys that extra text seems to help and I don't object to that..Modernist (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Music speaks in the music community. We have featured articles on musicians without a single music sample, and I doubt anyone is fighting for music samples in the lead- instead, the samples are added next to where the musical style is discussed, or in the history section to illustrate the changing styles. Why can it not be the same here, with the lead reserved for the synoptic overview? Just as you would not go in depth about the nitty-gritty of the style, and discussion of prominent works, in the lead (even though that is, I gather, the most important part of the article) so the images illustrating that discussion are not required in the lead. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For the general point, see WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style where it is specifically stated that a work in the lead slot may be preferable to a portrait of the artist. In the case of recent people like Nash, your argument is extremely odd - it is not very likely that a free portrait image of her exists, and the case for using a non-free portrait is very much weaker than that for using a non-free work. The work clearly adds to the reader's understanding etc, whereas a photo does not (a self-portrait of course would be different). Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen that guideline, and I am concerned about what it says- WikiProject specific guidelines should supplement the main policies and guidelines, not supersede them. No, it's the opposite- my argument is most sound with more recent artists. If no free portrait is available but one could be created, there should be no image used in the lead- if the non-free image in the lead (be it a painting, a portait or whatever) could be replaced by a free one, it should not be in there, as any non-free media should be used only if it is completely irreplaceable. That's a very basic, standard interpretation of the non-free content criteria. I certainly don't support throwing in non-free images of the artist themself when a free image could be created. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nash, our example is dead, and there are a huge range of artists for whom no free images is likely to exist until copyright expires. Otherwise, you are failing to read what I said. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is unacceptable Alberto Giacometti's 3 Men Walking is a classic sculpture that is needed and must not be deleted by you..What are you thinking? The piece is both relevant and material to the article.. Modernist (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, what is unacceptable is you attempting to turn me into some kind of "enemy" by misrepresenting the reasons I have nominated an image for deletion (no source) in a discussion where it isn't even relevant. I respectfully request you remove that comment from this discussion and, if you have issue with my edits, raise them with me on my talk page . J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not demonizing you, nor do I consider you an enemy, in favct we've been talking together all afternoon..I considered placing a message on your talk page but I thought that it would be more polite to you here..Look, why isn't there a discussion concerning the Giacometti? You've simply designated it for removal, I don't think that sort of thing is cool, in the light of these discussions - do you? Modernist (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, ok, I guess that's reasonable- sorry for jumping to conclusions. I'll explain the issue on your talk page so that this thread can be kept for the discussion at hand. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading to talk of something as a biography as the starting point. The starting point is that something is an article. The term "biography" has come into particular use because of WP:BLP concerns, but that applies to BLP issues. The subject of an article on an artist X is actually "The art of X with biographical information about X the artist who created the art". However, that is abbreviated in common usage to the simple article title "X". Primarily such an article is not a biography, because its core is not the life of the person, but the work of the person.

It is conventional and convenient on wikipedia to use a photo of the artist in the lead section, where such a photo is available, and I support this, but there is no reason why an image of an artwork cannot be used, when a photo is not at hand. The whole of the article text is pointed to the artistic creation and therefore justifies it. Wikipedia follows sources and it could well be argued that it is more correct to use the artwork: I have just checked through a shelf of artist monographs—the cover of every one has an artwork and none has a photo of the artist.

As regards the separation of text and the image to which it relates, there has been sufficient previous discussion on wiki to establish that they do not have to be in immediate juxtaposition. This is an excessively pedantic insistence. If an image is justifiable on the page, then it can be used in the lead, which is a summary of the rest of the article. Again, one has to look at established practice in books, where text frequently gives a page number for an image to be found elsewhere in the book.

 Ty  02:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am ambivalent regarding this issue, except where the lead image is the only one in the article. In that case the only image should be an artwork. If you look at Taschen Basic Art monographs, which are fairly standard introductions to individual artists, each one has an image of artwork on the front- and a photograph of the artist on the back. I think that this series of standardized, 96 page autographs is a good model for WP arts articles in general. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not fair to compare Wikipedia to other works with regard to non-free content, as our non-free content guidelines are far stricter than those of the majority of other works. For instance, on gaming websites, if a video game is mentioned, then its cover or a screenshot is generally thrown in, and reviews are often illustrated with screenshots that aren't really of anything in particular- they just give a "feeling" of the game. Similarily (I'm in my college library, I just grabbed a couple of books and had a look) art books will typically include many images of the artist's work, while not really discuss their life at all, except with regards to how their artwork developed over time. In response to what Tyrenius said- ("If an image is justifiable on the page, then it can be used in the lead") why not widen it? For instance, why not say that if an image is justified on an article about a company, why not include it on all of its products? Alternatively, if an image is warranted on Wikipedia, why not place it elsewhere on Wikipedia? The image is going to be of most use to the reader if it is placed next to the text that justifies it. Finally, and going back to the MOS side of the discussion, I don't think I would have as much opposition to images of artwork in lead sections if they weren't placed in infoboxes- infobox images should be images of what the infobox pertains to (be it an album cover in an album box, a portrait in a bio box, a logo in a corporation box and so on and so forth) and the infoboxes should definitely be about the artist, rather than the specific work (with the work infoboxes instead being on articles about the work). Therefore, I would say that, regardless of whether images of works could be placed in lead sections (I admit there is certainly a case for it) they should not be placed in lead infoboxes on the biographies. J Milburn (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A rather longer look in your college library will disprove your idea that "art books will typically include many images of the artist's work, while not really discuss their life at all, except with regards to how their artwork developed over time". We have hardly any articles that are just on the art of an artist, as opposed to a biography or a specific work.  As is in fact typical of monographs, or books on a single artist, both are covered in the same article. It is true many WP biographies don't have much on the style etc, vbecause it is much harder to source and write, but removing images will only make that problem still worse. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * J Milburn, you have completely ignored my argument that something is an article in the first instance and only called a biography as a matter of convenvience, and that the articles in this instance are essentially about the art of the artist. It is not possible to have a coherent debate unless you address the points that are raised. You have replied as if I'd not written that material at all. As far as "why not widen it?", that is a classic Straw man argument. I am not talking about widening it here. I am talking about a specific situation. Let's deal with the problems we have, not invent new ones that don't exist. An image does not have to be immediately next to relevant text. Being on the same page is perfectly adequate.  Ty  17:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tyrenius, I am sorry- please do not feel I was ignoring the (very relevant) point you raised- note also that I am very familiar with philosophy and critical thinking in general, so there is no way I would deliberately ignore a coherent argument that someone used against me. Instead, I have been considering your point over the last few days, and I am not yet ready to respond. Please do not feel that it has been forgotten. J Milburn (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Images proposal
We have the possibility of a very productive situation here to resolve some longstanding issues. I have said before that I think there is an over-use of non-free images, and I am equally opposed to mass deletions. The non-free images are there in order to create a quality encyclopedia, but this is not just an encyclopedia, it is one with a free-content mission, whose implementation inevitably compromises an ideal quality. That is something we have to live with for now.

I propose a task force to look at this issue properly with a view to establishing a stable situation. PhilKnight and J Milburn should liaise with Modernist and other editors here to work through things properly. It is useless for admins to try to resolve this unless they understand the subject properly and this will need to be explained. It is equally futile for arts editors to keep uploading images without a proper understanding of how these are going to be seen by others.

I suggest the best route is to have a freeze on activity on either side in the first instance and to start by examining one article in detail with each image looked at in turn and their overall use in combination. Color Field would be suitable for this, and discussion has already started on the talk page. If an agreement can be reached here, then it can be extended to other articles.

 Ty  02:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is, as I've come to expect of Ty, a reasonable approach. I apologize for any personal attacks I made in the preceding sections, J. Milburn- I was quite beside myself. However, something still seems unfair to me about FU policy when it allows use of logos and album covers merely for the purpose of identification, yet artwork must be in the context of critical commentary. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While I don't necessarily agree with everything you've said, I don't object to your suggestion, provided by deletion, you mean speedy deletion, instead of listing at IfD. PhilKnight (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with any speedy deletions whatsoever....If an image is overused in an article like the claim against the Mark Rothko; it might well be used in a different article as the Rothko in the Mark Rothko article..I'll work with J Milburn but I will not countenance any speedy deletions...not a chance...what about the return of the rest of the images Phil Knight was asked to return for starters? Modernist (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to work with people to achieve a middle ground; look - contemporary 20th century art and 21st century art, has Free Use Issues; it is important to us as it describes the culture of the world we all currently inhabit. It is covered here rather well now and it is getting better and better. The proposal is to cut back on Fair Use; I'm willing to listen and work with people on that compromise provided the depiction of Visual Art is not censored, curtailed, mangled, misrepresented, under represented, etc..I'd like to have a team to work with - Johnbod, Ty, Litho, and admins like User:Wickethewok and any other volunteers who understand and like art. I'm happy to consider working with J Milburn although PhilKnight and his speedy deletion declaration above sounds hostile to me...Modernist (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting in the first instance we do some detailed examination to establish a basis of action, as with the discussion started on Talk:Color Field. If this can be achieved, then VA editors will be in a position to nominate redundant images for deletion, or remove their use from articles where it is not justified. The input of J Milburn and PhilKnight, who are I understand not art specialists as such, is useful simply for that reason. There is no point nominating images for deletion unless it is done knowledgeably with regard to the needs of the subject. This is where VA can play their part. We need collaboration to achieve a stable outcome.  Ty  18:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that isn't how Wikipedia functions. The wikiproject doesn't own the articles, and any Wikipedian can nominate images, or remove them from articles. PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I consider this to be in bad faith and outrageous...This administrator clearly does not understand Visual Art and its value and this deletion is improper considering the ongoing dialogue here...Modernist (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion should be at images for deletion, because this wikiproject doesn't own the articles. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me where I can edit because you - do not own wikipedia..Modernist (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I trust PhilKnight's response to my post is based on a misunderstanding which I have cleared up by email, namely that "useful simply for that reason" applies to "not art specialists" which I thought was clear enough, and nothing else. Otherwise we could do with an explanation about the response "No, that isn't how Wikipedia functions" to my conclusion "We need collaboration to achieve a stable outcome." These new accusations of ownership are quite unfounded, when all that is being requested is collaborative dialogue. A Wikiproject is the obvious place to liaise with those who have knowledge of a subject and have been working on it. It is especially abrasive to launch into unilateral action when conversation is in progress. This is nothing to do with ownership: it's basic human respect. It might also help to avoid the fiasco of nominating the only good image in Mark Rothko for deletion, and retaining an inferior one which doesn't properly represent the work. That is not helping wikipedia: it is undermining its quality. If you're going to do something, then at least understand what you're doing. The editors here will be able to help with that understanding.  Ty  02:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the inferior image from Mark Rothko and PhilKnight will withdraw his IfD nom. My posts are being deleted from his talk page rather rapidly, so here's what the conversation was.  Ty  03:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the lead Rothko has been saved..thanks to Tyrenius, Now I'd like Phil Knight to retrieve the Paul Klee and the other images he deleted with no discussion the other day...the list is on his talk page...Modernist (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could make the case for requiring this image in addition to the existing one in the article. Is there a reason in his developement or stylistic variation or whatever that is shown by its inclusion?  Ty  04:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support the use of a task force to help clear up the overuse of non-free images on some of the visual arts pages on Wikipedia, and I would be more than happy to be involved in such a group. I am happy to admit that my knowledge of visual arts is, sadly, not what it could be, as my passion lies with other areas- therefore, I certainly do not mind working with editors more familiar with the subject matter than myself. I can see that there are members of this WikiProject who appreciate our aims as a free content encyclopedia and who are happy to work for a compromise, and, after seeing how reasonable everyone within the project is, I can see that discussion of the overall issue and of specific problem images/articles is the way to resolve the dilemma. J Milburn (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's a great offer. I suggest we continue with one case to start with, Color Field, where there is already progress being made, and see what parameters can be agreed. It's a good "test case".  Ty  02:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Klee
Resolved. Image:'Cat and Bird' by Paul Klee. 1928 oil and ink on gessoed canvas mounted on wood, 1928, Museum of Modern Art (New York City).jpg

Image was also in use on History of Painting and Western Painting with the same rationale.

FU rationale: 1. It illustrates an educational article about the history of painting as an example of the Bauhaus. 2. It is a low resolution image. 3. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

Deleted by PhilKnight: "I7: Invalid justification given for non-free image"


 * Currently the remaining Paul Klee is a watercolor, minor, somewhat washed out. It's a Paul Klee so it's not a bad work but Phil Knight deleted an oil painting that far more clearly demonstrates Klee's use of color, drawing and design by creating a portrait of a cat; close to the picture plane to the point of near abstraction...Paul Klee was one of the most influential colorists of the 20th century and we cannot at present show that, thanks to the deletion..Modernist (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, remove the water color, and re-include 'Cat and Bird'? PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be applying a rule of one fu image per article, regardless of the length or content of the article or the nature of the image(s). This rule does not have consensus, nor is it specified as such in policy.  Ty  15:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The watercolor is PDUS, there is no reason to delete it. <FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">Litho</FONT><FONT COLOR="#464646">derm</FONT> 21:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put up a new, PDUS image on Paul Klee, see what you think... <FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">Litho</FONT><FONT COLOR="#464646">derm</FONT> 22:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the watercolor and return the Paul Klee painting...thank you..Modernist (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are now 4 images of art in the article uploaded as PD. This is more than ample to give an insight into Klee's work. I move the discussion on the image is resolved.  Ty  03:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. If we ever need any FU image for Paul Klee, it would be in the context of discussing his late style- works like Death and Fire. But the article has a ways to grow before then. <FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">Litho</FONT><FONT COLOR="#464646">derm</FONT> 06:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, it's only two more years before his works are all PD. <FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">Litho</FONT><FONT COLOR="#464646">derm</FONT> 06:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They will be PD on 1 January 2011, the beginning of the next full year 70 years after the date of death.  Ty  17:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Jean Dubuffet
Image:'Dhôtel nuancé d’abricott' by Jean Dubuffet, 1947, Pompidou Center, Paris.jpg

Image was also in use on Outsider art, Tachisme, Abstract Expressionism, Lyrical Abstraction, and Art brut with the same rationale.

FU rationale: 1. This is a historically significant work that could not be conveyed in words. 2. Inclusion is for information, education, and analysis only. 3. Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows a major type of work produced by the artist. 4. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop. 5. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

Deleted by PhilKnight: "I7: Invalid justification given for non-free image"


 * The Jean Dubuffet that was deleted was a single figure, very typical of his important Post-War work of the 1940s, Art Brut par excellence; primitive, brash, powerful and stark, the type of painting that brought Dubuffet to international attention and acclaim.. Modernist (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This needs to be reinstated..Modernist (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are now two images in the article, one FU and one PD, but both showing the same type of (non-typical?) non-painterly style. I propose that the FU one is deleted and substituted by one that shows his classic art brut style, either the one that was previously there, or perhaps this or this, unless there is anything more representative.  Ty  03:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, The Tree Of Fluids, 1950 is a good substitute for the one that was deleted although I prefer the one that was deleted by Phil. I think we can lose one of the current ones...Modernist (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tree of Fluids shows the connection with Tachisme and Abstract Expressionism more obviously than the deleted one (available in first two images here). However, the text which applies to it needs to be expanded to show the importance of this phase of his work, citing the specific image as an example. At the moment it reads, "Many of Dubuffet's works are painted in oil paint using an impasto thickened by materials such as sand, tar and straw, giving the work an unusually textured surface." The current FU one would go.  Ty  04:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds okay, I'll get to it over the next few days...I'm still finishing up Color Field and I'd like to lose that ugly tag too. Modernist (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Morris Louis
Image:'Alpha-Pi', acrylic on canvas painting by Morris Louis, 1960, Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg

Image was also in use in Color Field, Western Painting, History of Painting, and Visual arts of the United States with the same rationale. The first three of these had the added rationale: 5. The image is important because it is an example of an historically significant work in the history of Western art. FU rationale: 1. This is a historically significant work that could not be conveyed in words. 2. Inclusion is for information, education and analysis only. 3. Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows the the work of the subject of the article. 4. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop.

Deleted by PhilKnight: "I7: Invalid justification given for non-free image: Rationales are inadequate. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detriment"


 * The Morris Louis that was deleted was an Unfurled the most characteristic and among the two most important series of Louis's paintings. Along with the Veils the Unfurled's are the most radical and the best known Color Field paintings and the best known Morris Louis paintings. Modernist (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Louis is relevant in every article it was in..return the image, and discuss the issue; unilateral decisions and unilateral pronouncements are not helpful, informative, educational or encyclopedic..Modernist (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Cornell
Adding Joseph Cornell deleted by Phil Knight with no discussion the other day.

|Joseph Cornell, Dürer Self-portrait, mixed-media collage, The Contemporary Museum, Honolulu

Was included at Joseph Cornell and Collage, Deleted by PhilKnight: "I7: Invalid justification given for non-free image: Rationales are inadequate. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detriment"

General points on these
That's great, but I guess the problem is none of this was said even in the captions, or I don't think they would have been deleted. I suppose the alternatives are:1) Ask PK to replace them, on the basis that a version of the above will be added to article or caption, 2) Take to WP:DRV on the same basis, 3) Upload other, perhaps even more characteristic, images with sufficient discussion of them to satisfy the Imagepolitzei - not that I think we should by any means abandon the "Nash" argument that an image can be generally illustrative of an article on an artist without the need for specific discussion. I notice btw, that there are 2 or 3 Rothko's on Commons with plainly ludicrous "I, the copyright holder..." copyright tags. I don't know what the attitude should be to those... Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)::
 * First stage is discussion with the deleting admin, if it is wished to restore images. There is a problem as PhilKnight seems to be operating a one FU image per article, as I've pointed out above. I request editors desist from improper characterisation of other editors: it doesn't help. Commons Rothkos will need to be deleted. That is the remit of Commons.  Ty  15:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the issue of and the potential of random, unilateral deletions by any administrator with no discussion, or dialogue or rhyme or reason, how do editors defend against such an absurd and whimsical possibility? Modernist (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Short term solutions are going to be very tedious and often arbitrary in their outcome. The long term solution is to establish a wider consensus that will be respected. To achieve this it's essential to involve editors/admins who focus on FU issues, and J Milburn's participation as above will help a lot. One observation is that the text to image ratio needs to be increased, and that the text should be composed, then the image(s) selected. There is a tendency to lead with images - understandable from the point of view of working in the arts, but problematic on wikipedia.  Ty  02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. J Milburn (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy to refocus my attention to polishing and adding text to the articles, and make them more readable and then add the references also. It'll take me a while to focus my thoughts; but I can see the points made..and I am in accord...Modernist (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the image is in the lead, but instead of an infobox is a normal image with a long caption containing textual explanation of its significance, is not everyone happy? Except for WP:BIO of course. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion's moved beyond just the lead to the general issue of FU images in articles, in this case VA articles. It is preferable to have the textual explanation in the main text, not in the caption. That at least seems to be what is emerging at the moment. A short explanation in the caption may be a safeguard.  Ty  03:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this is one of those things they say, but are absolutely detatched from any legal reality, or anything in guidelines. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We're trying to reach a working resolution. It would help here to develop the practice of a) putting full significant text in the main article rather than the caption b) putting FU images in the main article near such text, not in galleries c) using an image where it represents a key facet, which can be demonstrated when a section of text addresses that facet. This seems to be underway at Color Field.  Ty  04:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm doing that, although I may keep a small gallery at the end of it all, depends on how the whole thing comes together; although in the main we are working at finding a middle road.....Modernist (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The short caption read in the lead image at Color Field - Kenneth Noland working in Washington, DC., was a pioneer of the color field movement in the late 1950s seems to be useful...and probably helpful..Modernist (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting there should be no explanatory text in the image caption, but the main text should also contain that and more.  Ty  04:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been doing that, although in the main body I'm keeping em shorter..Check out the captions in the gallery at Caspar David Friedrich I finally realized that is the way to go, and references if possible..Modernist (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I read you correctly, I'm suggesting the opposite: full explanation and references, mentioning the image, in the main text, with just the key point(s) mentioned in the image caption (duplication of main ref(s) in the image caption would also be worthwhile).  Ty  04:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at color field for example the Frankenthaler painting is discussed in detail in the text, the image caption is a shorter sentence or two from that text..The images will all be mentioned in the text, and captions will also relate to the text..Modernist (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't have a great Morris Louis Unfurled or a Veil to work with thanks to Phil...Modernist (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's better done the other way round: write the text, then decide which image(s) is/are essential.  Ty  06:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with Tyrenius there. Images should be chosen in a "which images do I require" way, not "which of these can I keep" way. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That will most often be the same thing - they are there because they were required - one of the points it seems extraordinarily difficult to get across to image editors. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but for those not familiar with the subject, this may not be apparent, so it must be shown by the text that this is the case.  Ty  19:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy with all the images that I'm using so far in Color Field except for the Morris Louis, although he's so crucial to the article that the one I have is usable, I'd rather use the one that was deleted...I'd like that one - which was an (Unfurled) or a Veil painting..although I'd also like a better Sam Francis - a color field painting,like one of the ones deleted, and an Open Series Robert Motherwell...I do think the article is pretty good..and getting better..Modernist (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * J Milburn I've given you more text than I can fit into an airliner; and I'm still writing; and referencing so - please remove that tag on color field; it is very noisy...thanks...Modernist (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is not yet finalised and the tag isn't doing any harm in the meantime. It shouldn't be a great problem to swap one FU for another and delete the first, when other things are in place. Per above, write the text and then we can sort out the images.  Ty  19:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, hopefully a day or two more and it'll be done....Hopefully we're making some progress..Modernist (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

American Gothic
Here we go again....Betacommand keeps deleting the painting from Grant Wood, the artist who created it...and the image is discussed in the text, and it is the seminal work of this artists life..he would not be known if it wasn't for this one of the most famous paintings in American art history..comment here: ...Modernist (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My two cents is that the image is not needed in the article. It would be a very different question without the existing article on American Gothic itself. I suppose it all depends on how one interprets NFCC but I think most would say that it violates the spirit of "minimal use" and "significance". The fact is that there is only limited critical commentary of the painting in the Grant Wood article itself: this is only natural since that commentary is in the other article. I do see the counter-argument but this is a typical case where NFCC critics and NFCC enthusiasts will fight endlessly and I don't think it's worth fighting over: the article on Wood is about his life and his career and links to American Gothic are numerous so readers will naturally get the visual from the latter article. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This editor proposes deleting the Jackson Pollock painting Blue Poles here:. Modernist (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "this editor"? Is your comment intended to discredit the above opinion by insinuating that "this editor" is an evil NFCC crusader who understands squat about painting? The issue with the Blue Poles image is that the claim that it's free is bogus and that the image is completely blurry. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and this editor wound up agreeing with you...although I completely disagree with your input at Talk:Grant Wood...Modernist (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"If an image is used for more than depiction purposes such as critical commentary on the image itself, then it may be acceptable outside of an article regarding the image itself." That is from Betacommand's own essay.  Ty  07:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think American Gothic should be restored at Grant Wood. Modernist (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion on the article talk page.  Ty  06:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Tessellations
Is there an article on Tessellations in the arts; i.e. in Islamic art, M.C. Escher, etc.? If not I might see if I could put something together. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for deletion (Nash image)
The long discussion above could relate to any image so I hesitate to even post this note. But in case anyone here has time, I would appreciate a vote on this which resulted from it. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to launch a DRV on this, but am having the usual problems with the template, so for now it doesn't appear on the main listing, but only here. Does anyone have a link to the similar recent Rothko discussion, btw? Gottit! Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now sorted & running Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you Johnbod, and Modernist and Tyrenius, somebody decided keep. (For crying out loud, as it should be.) -SusanLesch (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Stella Vine
I'd be grateful for any watching eyes here. It's being heavily edited by a "fan".  Ty  20:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Retro-Abstract Expressionism
This article appeared today, and it seems to me to be a hoax..as well as these two people: American retro-abstract expressionists William Eastings and Scott Eivers; comments appreciated...Modernist (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's connected to a satellite of artist's biographies now, including Maxime Déjaune, most of which you've spotted and tagged. If it's not a hoax, it appears to be promotional for a group of yet non-notable figures, with a movement and school that are similarly without notice. The inclusion of possibly spurious sources doesn't help their cause. Good catch. JNW (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess they all go to school here too: Pont Aven School of Contemporary Art...It looks like a little network of sockpuppets also...Modernist (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The school is legitimate, but that article needs work. JNW (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks JNW, it reads less like an advertisement now...Modernist (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all--you did the heavy lifting on all the others. Good work, and follow-up by Orangemike. JNW (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Parallel projection in medieval art
In the Talk page for the Isometric projection article, someone recently broached the subject of the use of parallel projection in medieval art (link: ). I was hoping that someone here might be able to contribute something more substantial to the discussion. Thanks! SharkD (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)