Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.230.193.65 (talk) at 16:32, 1 October 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Related discussions:

French art history

The whole French art series (all centuries and subpages) is in serious need of work (expansion, footnotes, references, clean-up) by knowledgable specialists. Thanks -- NYArtsnWords 03:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Painting

This was a list but has now been hugely expanded by a few editors; some of it may be cut & pasted from other articles, I'm not sure. Much of it is repeated at a new Western painting. The coverage & quality seem pretty variable to me. As these are I suppose flagship articles, people may like to help out. Johnbod 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian art

and almost all articles in this area really need help! Johnbod 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content

Below is a copy of a request I posted on the Non-free content project talk page...

"Would someone from this project kindly discuss with the folks on the Visual arts project (and possibly related projects) about the history and current state of non-free images on wikipedia as related to visual arts? A bit about what is expected on non-free image pages, and how the visual arts editors can ensure policy compliance and what the visual arts editors can do to aid the Non-free content project. The seemingly sudden removal of images from visual arts pages and notifications of pending deletion has been jarring to many visual arts editors. (I understand that it's not new policy, but without forewarning it's coming as a surprise to some, I suspect.) Many thanks!"

--sparkitTALK 17:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The main policy page on this topic is here: Wikipedia:Image use policy. The help page is here: Help:Image page.

  • All images on Wikipedia must have both a source and a copyright tag. It seems tedious sometimes, but it is important from a legal standpoint. I see Sparkit's made a handy infobox template for art images at {{Image information art}} to supplement some of the other templates (linked on that page). Thanks! :)
  • Free images are legally free - they are available for anyone to use for any purpose, with occasional disclaimers, such as requiring attribution. For example, the author could say, "Use this however you want, but credit me as the author." It is not acceptable to upload images that are for non-commercial use only or that are for use on Wikipedia only with permission; those are not free. Free images include those that have been released into the public domain and images to which the creator has released the rights. Common reasons for an image to be public domain include: the author died more than 100 years ago, it was published in the United States before 1923, or it was created by the US federal government. There are other reasons, of course. Different countries have different expirations on copyright, so you may need to check those if the author died less than 100 years ago. Specific tags for public domain art are available. A photographer will frequently release an image under a free license, but must do so explicitly. If you find images on a website and there is nothing that actually says the images are free use, consider them copyrighted.
See also the tags for public domain, free licenses, and US government images.
If it is a free image, upload it to the Commons (if possible). If you find a free image, but don't have a chance to upload it right away, you can tag it with {{Move to Commons}}. It is always preferable to do it yourself, but this template may be helpful. There are tools to help you move images to the Commons at Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. If there is an image you want to add information to that is hosted at the Commons, don't edit the page on Wikipedia; make an account on the Commons and put it there instead. Commons-hosted files should have a red tab at the top and its description page can be deleted under CSD I2 otherwise (which won't delete the image).
  • Non-free images are copyrighted and are only acceptable on Wikipedia if they cannot be replaced with a free equivalent. These are not accepted on the Commons.
There are three requirements for non-free images:
  1. It must have a template tag.
  2. It must detail a fair use rationale to explain why a non-free image is "fair use" and irreplaceable.
  3. It must not be orphaned (i.e., it must be used on an article page and not a user or talk page).
Examples of non-free images include 2-dimensional art and album covers - there is no way you can produce a free equivalent. You can't take a picture of a painting and release it under your own license. A copyrighted photograph of 3D art frequently is not fair use because someone could take a picture of it and release it under a free license. If this is not true, and it would be extremely difficult to produce a free equivalent, you must explain this in the rationale. There are some general examples at WP:FURG. This can get tedious, and many images slide by with no rationale, but someone may come by and mark your image for deletion if it is not included.
In addition to the requirements on the image page, there are restrictions on where you can use non-free content in Wikipedia. You could use Image:Dsotm.jpg on a page providing critical commentary of Pink Floyd's album The Dark Side of the Moon, but you could not use it on a page about prisms, and you cannot use it in a gallery of Pink Floyd album art unless it provides commentary and is not merely there to look at.
  • Deletion: If you find an image you think is unsuitable for Wikipedia, you can place a warning template on it. Most of the templates you may need can be found at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. You will rarely need the speedy deletion I4, I5, I6, or I7 templates for images because they should first be tagged with one of the templates found at the top of IfD for a period of time (between 2 days and a week). Blatant copyright violations can sometimes be deleted right away under CSD G12, but this is meant for obviously commercial photographs with no possible fair use. (For example, a picture of a peony listing its source as Corbis would be G12, but an image of a book cover found at Amazon.com would not be G12). Images with no license can be tagged with {{nld}}, which puts it at Category:Images with unknown copyright status for seven days.
If an image of yours seems to be suddenly deleted without proper warning, it's frequently because someone wasn't being considerate and didn't use deletion warning messages. There's a reason the speedy deletion process for images takes several days, and not warning uploaders or not placing caption messages sort of defeats the purpose.
  • How you can help: Check out art images on article pages as you come across them. Make sure the image has a source and the appropriate copyright tag, and if it's not free, make sure a fair use rationale is included. Images are a bit neglected on Wikipedia compared to other projects, probably because of the confusing copyright issues. :) If you're interested in delving deeper, take a look at some images in Category:Images of art. Many of these can either be moved to the Commons or can have a fair use rationale attached; a large portion of them do not have infoboxes yet, which you can add. Your interest in the visual arts makes you, the WikiProject Visual arts participant, the best person to add infoboxes to art images.
  • Questions: If you have additional questions about images, you can ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I hope I covered enough and wasn't too vague; I apologize if I seemed wordy. :) --Strangerer (Talk) 08:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Strangerer, for the wonderful explanation! --sparkitTALK 11:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a very good explanation! Also be sure to check out Wikipedia:Basic copyright issues for some more information. As to the possible concerns over recent changes to the templates, (for example {{art}} changing to {{Non-free 2D art}}) this isn't a change in policy at all, and it certainly doesn't mean the images are in any danger. It is only a change in how we are tagging images. For machine readability we would like all the non-free image license templates to start with that term. Most of the images that are in articles about them are clearly acceptable per the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. This project definitely should advise us though going forward, it is certainly not our goal to lose any images that we can keep! - cohesion 19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western painting

I'd appreciate help in sorting out, and figuring out which images can be used with a fair use explanation in educational articles such as Western painting. All input from Visual arts editors will be appreciated. Please weigh in here or at Talk:Western painting Thanks Modernist 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few conflict of interest articles

The articles Frank Popper and Joseph Nechvatal have a conflict of interest going on. Namely, the two were initially substantially edited near the same time, and created by the subject/someone close to the subject. Nechvatal's article has been extensively edited by his daughter (81.57.34.12) and she has also edited Popper's. I'm suspicious about a few things: namely, Nechvatal's critical evaluation appears to have only a positive point of view, and Popper is greatly aggrandized in his article. Can anyone help to sort this out?--Wafulz 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add Julia Suits. For whatever reason, an editor who appears to be Julia Suits - not the article's creator - wants to keep the article minimalist. Gordonofcartoon 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

project iconç

hi , I propose using this image or some modified version for the project icon, to make it more distingiseable --Andersmusician $ 05:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefered the earlier version of the hand, & don't much like this, nor do I think it makes the icon more distinguishable Johnbod 21:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infoart

User:Infoart writes for the Saatchi Gallery web site. He has created many articles on the same artists on wikipedia, initially using the same text (which he says he owns the copyright of) and then paraphrasing it. The text is "art talk" and not suitable for a wikipedia article. One solution is to speedy delete them all as advertising requiring a rewrite. I feel it would be more in wikipedia's interest to keep them and bring them to an acceptable standard, initially by stubbing them. If a consensus of editors feel differently, then we can act accordingly. In the meantime, I've opened this page to co-ordinate efforts:

Infoart articles

Tyrenius 14:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Theed

Hi. I have created an article on William Theed (as part of a project on Dunorlan Park where a statue of his was displayed before it was stolen. Just thought you'd like to know as I think it falls under you area of interest! Thanks --McKDandy 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tyrenius 03:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What'd be the convention for naming? This is "William Theed the younger", son of "William Theed the elder". The son is better known, so for the moment I've left him as William Theed and called his father William Theed the elder. Gordonofcartoon 01:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Calderon notability

The Miguel Calderón article has the notability template on it. I think he's a pretty well known contemporary artist, can somebody take a look? I added some external links but not much beyond that. --AW 16:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? --AW 19:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have not heard of him. But, I believe you have asserted his notability. I would suggest you cite your sources for the statements you make there. --Kimontalk 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okey doke --AW 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now another user is saying the notability is not asserted, because "he needs an individual exhibit at a major art museum." Anyone else care to take a look? --AW 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for works of art?

Copied from: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions Forgive me if this has been brought up before, or if this is covered somewhere else, but I was wondering what conventions should be followed for naming pages for works of art, such as paintings, sculptures, etc.

At this point there doesn't seem to be any set rules for titles of art, with Wikipedians adding in brackets the medium (as in Ship of Fools (painting)), the artist's name ( Adoration of the Magi (Gentile da Fabriano)), the artist's name and the medium (The Kiss (Rodin sculpture)), or the artist's name and in what city the piece currently resides (Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington)) as a disambiguation.

So are there set rules for naming works of art at this point? If not they should probably be put in place. It seems very disorganized this way. -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably something to raise at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts first, so I will copy yours & this there, & would suggest the discussion is continued there initially. Personally I think, at least for paintings with common titles, the Title (artist) convention is certainly best, going to Title (artist, city) where the former would not identify the work. It was originally Annunciation (van Eyck), but as I point out on the talk page there, he and his relatives painted about 6 (including one on the Ghent Altarpiece), so I moved it. I wonder if there is only one Adoration of the Magi (Gentile da Fabriano) - there are certainly many Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Rubens)'s, though I think the article covers the most famous. With an unusual title like Ship of Fools (painting) I think this formula is ok, but Nativity (painting) is obviously useless. Johnbod 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are there set rules for naming works of art at this point? If not they should probably be put in place. It seems very disorganized this way. -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(NB: The following was originally posted on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions) There might be a case for doing away with the medium as disambiguator – doesn't Sunflowers (Van Gogh), after all, sound better than Sunflowers (series of paintings)? The convention that's emerged is to use the format Title (artist), as rightly noted by Johnbod, with Title (artist, city) as second preference. There's no reason for a title like The Kiss (Rodin sculpture) unless it has to be disambiguated from The Kiss (Rodin painting) or some such.
An old way of disambiguating the names of the myriad different Madonna and Childs etc. produced by a single artist was to tack the name of a past owner onto them, e.g. Aldobrandini Madonna, Mond Crucifixion, Benois Madonna and so on. Wherever such titles exist it would be good to use them to relieve the tedium of multiple works with generic titles such as Portrait of a Young Man et al. We might consider changing The Virgin and Child with St Anne and St John the Baptist to the less cumbersome Burlington House Cartoon on this basis. (Note how all the words in this kind of title – Ghent Altarpiece, Borghese Gladiator – are capitalised. I explained here (scroll down) why I think that's desirable, even if it would seem to go against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization).)
Use of the definite article is also worth discussing – why The Flagellation (Piero della Francesca) but Resurrection (Piero della Francesca)? Apologies for not noticing this discussion sooner; I am however very interested in working on an Art Manual of Style. Ham 18:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a slow-moving start to a draft hereWikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style. As it is so early in the process, I would just slap stuff in & wait for a debate to develop. Johnbod 13:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art templates for deletion/renaming

Resolved

See 4 discussions at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#June_4 -- Tyrenius 14:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Hayter

OK article, but needs better referencing than indiscriminate bibliography. Gordonofcartoon 01:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Dunlaps

Resolved

Art-knowledgeable editors would be useful in helping sort out the mess re Bill Dunlap - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Dunlap. Gordonofcartoon 11:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Assessment

Postmodern art. Is the format reasonable? How's the citation density? Does it need more images? What direction should this article go in? Thanks, Vagary 01:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked considerably hard editing this article, I have an opinion, and in my opinion the format is fine, citations can always be added to the many that are there now, no more images, and the factual specifics concerning contemporary art movements like intermedia, performance art, Appropriation art, and Neo-conceptual art, installation art, Institutional Critique, can be deepened. If important textual changes can improve something then add and cite. Thanks, Modernist 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, On June 11, the image Sol LeWitt, Four Sided Pyramid, was deleted for copyright reasons it or something similar could be added. Modernist 11:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential ongoing cleanup

Danngala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Annex Galleries). Having been advised on article format and WP:COI guidelines, has proceeded to create another article, Bernard childs, with the same nonstandard format and a COI link. Gordonofcartoon 18:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard childs deleted as copyvio. Worth checking any other articles. This is clearly promotional and if it requires rewriting, then it can be speedied under G11. I'll watch this space, or post on my talk page.Tyrenius 01:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Infoart#New_draft_articles

Comment invited at the above location. Tyrenius 16:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bristol Art Library

Interesting, but is it notable? I can't decide. Gordonofcartoon 10:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline, but seems to have got some recognition. I've added EL of BBC site (info needs to be incorporated and used as ref) plus info and ref from University of Exeter. Tyrenius 14:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving /Infoart articles

I've changed the archive box to include /Infoart articles. It was automatic, but now it's manual. If anyone wants to archive talk from this page, just click on the link in the archive box for the right period; then cut and paste talk from this page into the archive page: GFDL is preserved in the history of this page. GFDL for /Infoart articles is preserved in its own history. Tyrenius 00:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Pahl

Notable? Gordonofcartoon 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems not! Tyrenius 00:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Tunnard

Euw. Help appreciated: a lot of unsourced waffly stuff from way back. Gordonofcartoon 02:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikiepedia_Use_Of_Artistic_Images

Check this out. Tyrenius 01:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting point theoretically - that the GFDL license might deter artists from uploading images because of its requirement to permit "alteration" of images. But I'd like to see a concrete example of how this concern might manifest in a way detrimental to an artist. Gordonofcartoon 02:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an image is released under GFDL it means anyone in the world can modify it in any way they choose. Here's a hypothetical example: a prominent artist generously uploads a portrait of a world leader. Someone puts a swastika armband on the figure, a Hitler moustache and scribbles on it "world leader is a Nazi" and then uses it on an extremist web site, citing GFDL. The extremist organisation proceeds to use this image in any context they choose and as widely as they want, provided GFDL is cited. Furthermore, the prominent artist's name must continue to be associated with this image as its original author, and the artist cannot do anything about any of this. Such a prospect does not encourage anyone to release images.

Let's suppose Picasso was alive and uploaded his blue period images. Someone decides they should all be colour-changed to red, and that version happens to get picked up and used by other people, who don't even realise there was a blue version. It makes a mockery of the artist's intent, and also of the claimed purpose of spreading knowledge about the artist via an encyclopedia.

Basically any art uploaded under GFDL is reduced to clip art.

Tyrenius 03:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied my response to Jimbo's talk page and suggest continuing there as a more prominent forum. Tyrenius 04:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New articles bot

I just became aware of the existence of User:AlexNewArtBot which produces lists of new articles including specified terms for many projects. Maybe we should be on this? Johnbod 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Possible area for watching. Zeno X Gallery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating a number of articles about artists featured at the Zeno X Gallery (Yun-Fei Ji, Cristof Yvoré, Patrick Van Caeckenbergh, Maria Serebriakova, Jenny Scobel, Mark Manders, John Körmeling, Noritoshi Hirakawa, Kees Goudzwaard, Miriam Cahn so far). They're not bad, but the work descriptions tend to artspeak and some seem a bit borderline in notabiity. I'm posting a mild warning about conflict of interest. Gordonofcartoon 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy deleted a couple as promotional requiring rewrite because of the "artspeak" puffing up the artist. I'll happily undelete if anyone wants to work on them. I have in mind deleting others of a similar nature, but would welcome comments from other editors, and again if anyone wants to work on them, please do so. Tyrenius
I'd put at least the first two up for Afd, though others are clearly okJohnbod 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Yun-Fei Ji is OK (inclusion in Whitney Biennale); agree Cristof Yvoré probably nn; the rest look OK, just about.--Ethicoaestheticist 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I wasn't talking about WP:SPEEDY A7 (for non-notable subjects), but G11:

Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well.

There are many cases where galleries or artists themselves create articles to promote an artist. If they're non-notable, they can be speedy-deleted. If they are notable, but need to be "fundamentally rewritten", then they can also be speedy-deleted. A lot of these articles do need to be rewritten, because of PEACOCK language either in terms of an artist's status or in "artspeak" interpretation of the artist's work. Such rewriting creates a lot of work for other editors.

Tyrenius 13:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does, and I think that a speedy may make the original contributor re-do in a more appropriate style -sometimes anyway. Johnbod 13:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage more use of speedy criterion G11 "promotional requiring rewrite" for artist/gallery articles. Tyrenius 13:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than make the decision unilaterally, I invite other project editors to participate with the following (add more if necessary), commenting for either:

  1. OK
  2. Will undertake rewrite
  3. Speedy delete, A7 (insufficient notability)
  4. Speedy delete, G11 (promotional requiring rewrite)
Articles


T is right - I mainly looked at the exhibitions. If you take that out there's nothing left, so per above, speedy, or whatever. Notable, potentially, but .... Johnbod 02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've kept this for now, unless anyone has other thoughts. Tyrenius 11:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho-hum Johnbod 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


OK Johnbod 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some points of possible wider application are being made in the above discussion. Tyrenius 00:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete on that because the gallery was very large and only contained titles and dates. If that was allowed the same could be done for every artist, and I think that would create a backlash against galleries. I think more text and informative captions have to be added to make a gallery tenable in the current climate. A huge number of editors seem to think there is a policy against galleries as such, which there isn't. Many think this hypothetical prohibition applies even to small galleries at the end of articles. Nowadays it's asking for trouble to call anything a gallery in the title - just like "Foo...in popular culture". Johnbod 02:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we made the arguments, just the same, win some lose some, the point was made though. Modernist 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expert review: Dikeou collection

Resolved Resolved

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Dikeou collection is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 18:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. I think it should go. Modernist 03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected hoaxes

Resolved Resolved

Please see Maurice J. Stephens and Ruediger Carl and their talk pages. Input welcome. Tyrenius 23:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither appear (in that form) in the Getty Union list of Artists' Names. However slightly to my surprise, Richard Anuszkiewicz (supposed pupil of Carl) does But artists of that date who are not in the Getty list aren't likely to be notable as artists. Johnbod 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out a couple of other dubious names from the articles and they're OK: it's just the article subjects which appear not to be. Tyrenius 00:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's that post-exam period. Off to AfD I think. Johnbod 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - well spotted! An intra-wiki copyvio even! Johnbod 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles speedy deleted as vandalism. User indef blocked. Tyrenius 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alasdair Taylor

Could I have opinions re notability? Apart from getting hyped on Alasdair Gray's blog, I can't find much sign of him. Gordonofcartoon 02:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 2 big quotes, the Arts Council Grant, & the retrospective just bring him in under WP:BIO. Johnbod 02:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with multiple independent sources (that is, lack of). There is an exhbition catalogue.[1] The Scottish Arts Council recognition is helpful. I'll go for keep, but the article needs to be edited. Tyrenius 03:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a bit more searching, and there are a couple of problem issues. 1) Given Alasdair Gray's strong reputation, is his blog sufficiently authoritative as a source? 2) There's a conflict of interest: Gray is promoting Taylor's work; and Avril Rennie is a long-standing friend of Taylor (see the comments to Gray's blog post [2]). This is surmountable, but the article currently seems to contain a lot of material that is based on personal knowledge rather than published sources. Gordonofcartoon 11:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gray's text in the article was apparently published in a catalogue, so I think we can use this safely. Blog? To be used with care, I guess, though I don't think it should be completely excluded. Tyrenius 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See new discussion on Talk:Alasdair Taylor‎ and continue there. Tyrenius 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a new source: an online Ayrshire arts brochure wth plenty of detail. Hmmm: I still have an obscure feeling that rather than acting on notability criteria, Wikipedia has been coopted into a long-running attempt to create notability for this guy. Gordonofcartoon 13:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is certainly being positioned as "famously unknown", a la Vermeer, Grunewald etc once upon a time. But that the Arts Council of S made a grant to sort out his documentation after his death is persuasive. Johnbod 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The long-running attempts have in themselves bestowed a degree of notability. It could go to AfD, but, judging from past results, I think it would pass. Ironically, Gordonofcartoon has done some good sleuthing work to make this even more likely! Tyrenius 00:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind it passing. The Gray saga is QI. I just minded it being based on blatant (and pretty unrepentant) OR and COI. I think we've got enough now to move beyond that. Gordonofcartoon 01:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's good on all points! Well done on your work there. Tyrenius 01:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polychronos Lempesis (moved to Polychronis Lembesis)

Any thoughts on this? 5 google hits including wiki, maybe a couple of mirror sites.[3] The creator's contributions indicate it's not a hoax.[4] Can anyone check out the Greek wiki? Tyrenius 03:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ipodamos seems to know a lot about Greek art. Modernist 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found him on the Greek Wikipedia: Πολυχρόνης Λεμπέσης Unfortunately my Greek is limited to reading the alphabet. But Googling the Greek name finds the English transliteration is Polychronis Lembesis, which is a bit more useful in finding references. Gordonofcartoon 13:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cross-posted a request to Ipodamos. Incidentally, AGENT 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly enthusiastic, but heading for a block if he/she doesn't stop removing maintenance tags on unsourced material. Gordonofcartoon 11:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good detective work there. Give AGENT 7 a chance per WP:BITE. Tyrenius 14:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to, but he/she is not taking advice: adding large quantities of unreferenced material in poor English, removing maintenance templates until blocked, twice now, and now coming back as IP sockpuppets to do more of the same. See latest effort at Polychronis Lembesis. Gordonofcartoon 14:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is an important Greek painter of the Munich School. i was planning to make a wikipage for him. There is a Greek one already Ipodamos

COBRA (avant-garde movement)

Interesting batch of artist bios here, many of which need sourcing/expansion. Gordonofcartoon 11:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do list for WikiProject Contemporary Art

I've added a to do list for WikiProject Contemporary Art which lists some of the articles already tagged as non-notable, unreferenced etc.--Ethicoaestheticist 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Museumsyndicate.com

This site is a good resource of images and seems to be in line with wiki policies. http://www.museumsyndicate.com/missionstatement.php . Worth considering for External links. Tyrenius 02:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Dodwell

Anyone know anything about him? I'm struggling with finding notability and independent sources: just a couple of gallery profiles, and a Western Daily Press piece that clearly came straight from the same source (as, I suspect, did the whole article and bundle of images). Gordonofcartoon 02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only 50 google hits including wiki and mirrors, and nothing of great note.[5] Not quite a speedy, but probably suitable for AfD. He seems to have recognition as a member of various societies, but that on its own is not enough. Tyrenius 18:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralfonso – Ralf Gschwend

Resolved

I'd like some evaluation of this. Only about 40 google hits. Tyrenius 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tricky - he is different anyway. I get 13,700 ghits for Ralfonso, perhaps a hundred apparently mostly about him, but low-grade - you-tube etc. Lots in German. No great critical appraisals I can see. Johnbod 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial impression was he's not notable as a conceptual artist, - to me anyway, but somehow viable and possibly notable in theoretical Kinetic sculpture design, - if that exists, maybe in context with Kinetic sculpture. Modernist 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ralfonso-Ralf Gschwend" 3 google hits.[6] "Ralfonso Gschwend" (a duplicate article, which I deleted, was posted with this title) 13 google hits.[7] There are claims in the article, but not verified. Tyrenius 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, certainly not a household word, Alexander Calder he isn't, the question is shall the editor of the article be pressed for more notability then can be provided or is this article meeting the bare minimum. My initial take was it's on the borderline. I agree that he doesn't fit on the lists of notables. Modernist 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was up for deletion I'd go with weak keep. In my opinion, the most significant source (not stated in the article) is this [8], but notability would depend on whether this is an official Olympic contest or not, and if so, how many reached the finalist stage. By the way, on Google I'm getting 584 hits for "Ralfonso Gschwend"[9] and 356 for "Ralf Gschwend"[10]. --Ethicoaestheticist 23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The big number is just for "Ralfonso" - obviously not all about him, but more than 16 certainly. But he also uses "Ralf Gschwend", which gets 364, again mostly low quality. I haven't explored very far. [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Aesthetics

An aesthetics task force has been set up at WikiProject Philosophy which might benefit from WikiProject Visual Arts input, or vice versa.--Ethicoaestheticist 21:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I know it sounds like a Monty Python sketch, but best of luck. Art needs a look over. Johnbod 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been raised on the article's talk page and after back and forth between myself and Dsmdgold with no consensus, at his suggestion I am bringing it to your attention for comments. If interested members of this wikiproject could add their input there, that would be appreciated. Please note that this is not an RFC, but as I just noticed that, this could be referred there too. Thanks. BrokenSphereMsg me 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of American Art

The other day a new editor added a lot of links from the Archives of American Art to articles related to American visual artists. An administrator blocked him, and deleted all of them and a controversy ensued. A few editors including me protested - saying the links to the Archives of American art were not spam. Another administrator unblocked him. I restored all the links. Please weigh in here: [12] and there is more information here : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fwww.aaa.si.edu
and Aaa intern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
If you have an opinion, it will be appreciated. Thanks, Modernist 10:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted on AN/I and WikiProject Spam. Tyrenius 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Modernist. The links enrich the articles by connecting them to an unimpeachable, public, institutional, non-commercial, and thoroughly accredited source. Regardless of the fact that the links may have been added by some automatic means, they should remain, as welcome and legitimate sources of information. MdArtLover 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Template standardisation

Those visually inclined might like to check out the above and its talk page. Tyrenius 07:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Lack

Had to share this: I was fascinated to find that Stephen Lack from Scanners is a successful artist. Gordonofcartoon 04:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen is well known as a painter. From the days when Gracie Mansion was his dealer during the 1980s. Modernist 23:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Coleman

Could someone check out this article? I'm not sufficiently au fait with art copyright to judge, but "self-promotional, experimental or exhibition work" looks iffy as a justification for image use. COI issues too. Gordonofcartoon 11:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC) User: Sarah Coleman. Please note the images are created by me since I'm a professional illustrator by trade (and thus well-versed in copyright law), so had no worries about putting them online. However, since you alerted me to the possibility that a handful of other web users may not have honourable intentions, I've decided not to bother including images at all. There are plenty of images on the web if people want to see them! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah J Coleman aka Inkymole, Illustrator (talk • contribs) 01:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Assessment - SAIC

Could somebody please assess The School of the Art Institute of Chicago? --76.214.201.26 08:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Kahlo

There is an out of control editor - an art expert - on Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera who apparently knows better than all, - 70.18.5.219 (Talk), and I am at the edge of the 3RR's and I can't really continue without violating that rule, he's left a message on the talk page that is fairly over the top. [13] Give a look, much appreciated. Modernist 23:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sofonisba Anguissola

Sorry if I didn't post this correctly - I apologise for my incorrect English - it's not my native language. I have a question about the article about Sofonisba Anguissola. She was the oldest daughter of a Cremonese nobleman - and she had five sisters and one brother. In the article it is said that her mother died when she was four or five. Was her mother pregnant all the time, or are her siblings twins? Or did her father marry another woman? Sincerely Lena Kronberg - Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.198.40 (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her sisters are between 8 & 25 years younger than her, so must be from at least one other wife. Johnbod 03:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I wish I could find out something more about that, and abut a drawing that she made c 1554 - with a boy bitten by a crawfish. I've heard that the boy is supposed to be her brother Asdrubale. But sometimes I can read that it is her son Asdrubale. I didn't thought she had any children. She was too old to have any when she married. Sincerely Lena Kronberg

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts&oldid=161588741"