Jump to content

Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Finalize image groupings and format

Made its own section from #Article improvement progress.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Regarding "Finalize any remaining image groupings and formatting" - Yesterday I looked for other images [commons] to add to the groupings, and added a couple that were pared down to no more than 3 images per grouping approach (i.e., I don't think we need to add any more)
Oh, except File:Radiator Building – Night, New York (1927), Georgia O'Keefe.jpg. There's a version on Wikipedia here that is about to be deleted... and this one on commons. I have a question out about whether the reason for deletion applies to the commons image here. I don't think so, but I wanted to be sure before using it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The issue with the image on Wikipedia is that it doesn't meet the requirements for a non-free fair use rationale. I am adding the commons version to the Georgia O'Keeffe#Skyscraper paintings section. It can be removed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 Done, added file to article–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I added a comments at File:Radiator Building - Night, New York, 1927.jpg#Orphaned non-free image File:Radiator Building - Night, New York, 1927.jpg and the talk page for the image.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
UPDATE: Regarding the Radiator Building painting, this tag was placed on the paintings Wikipedia page:
{{Di-orphaned non-free use|date=1 July 2023|replacement=Radiator Building – Night, New York (1927), Georgia O'Keefe.jpg}}{{Now Commons|Radiator Building – Night, New York (1927), Georgia O'Keefe.jpg}} today. It says the proper file to use is the one on commons, and not the orphaned file in Wikipedia.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I went through each image to ensure that the captioning was consistent. There were a few places where I couldn't find the method or collection. I used SIRIS for research.
Meaning: Unless there are questions about the gallery/image format (User:CaroleHenson/sandboxGO), or images selected, I think we're done. Any desired changes?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
To sum up where I think we are at: Ppt91 helped guide me through improvement of the galleries. DocWatson42 prefers galleries, which is used in the article at the moment. And, it would be helpful to have Orangesky6791's or anyone else who would like to weigh-in.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
And I don't mind three images per gallery (though I'm also fine with more) and I actually prefer the 200 pixel size, as it's close to the standard image default of 220, and is significantly larger than the gallery default. —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Excellent, DocWatson42, thanks for your input.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No further/recent feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy

Made its own section from #Article improvement progress.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Re: To dos, I think we should add to check questionable statements. As I mentioned, I posted {{Accuracy dispute|date=July 2023}} for bisexuality claim, per discussion on this page. If there's any other questionable statements, I suggest that we identify them now within the article. How does that sound?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Wrong template, I meant {{Disputed inline|date=July 2023}}, an inline template. But the two at the top for tone and context are good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Bisexuality draft

UPDATE: I am going to start working on this. Feel free to comment here / or review when done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
See Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/bisexuality draft–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Because I'm newly jumping into this discussion not sure if this is of use (or already discussed) in resolving the disputed accuracy, See pages 113-114 in Marjorie Garber's 2012 book, Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life (Taylor & Francis) [1] which goes into some depth. Netherzone (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
That's very helpful, Netherzone, thanks!. I will work on that next. –CaroleHenson (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ppt91, Orangesky6791, DocWatson42, and Netherzone:, I finished drafting the content for the Relationships section at Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/bisexuality draft#Draft. I took a stab at the order of the info, so it would be helpful to hear your comments in general - and about the flow of the information.
Regarding earlier comments, I just mention the letters once - that Foursome states that conclusions from letters (that she was bisexual) are not in keeping with the way O'Keeffe lived her life.
As a side note, I will take a look at the Intro from Ppt91's post.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson Thanks! The intro is just the first paragraph to improve flow. I did some more work on New York yesterday and will plan to gradually move into late 1920s and then early 1930s. My schedule will get a bit more busy later this week, but I'll keep everyone posted here on progress. :-) Ppt91talk 17:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Ppt91, I created the #Intro section for comments since your post.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Added (that she was bisexual) regarding letters above. Underlined it to differentiate from earlier content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I was picking away at the draft yesterday and feel pretty good about it. I merged Marriage and Relationship to Georgia O'Keeffe#Marriage and relationships section because the Marriage part discusses her relationship with her husband until the mid 1920s and the Relationship section started with 1930. The changes were made here.
In my opinion, it reads a bit better that way. Feel free to edit it in the article, though, or discuss the draft here.
I know that several of you are really busy, so I am just seeing what I can get done to close out items. I know this is a sensitive bit of information, so your input will be very helpful! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I further merged "Mental Illness" into the Personal life section and since there are no other subsection, the "Marriage and relationships" section heading is no longer needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad you integrated and contextualized that content CaroleHenson. To place these facts in context makes a lot more sense.
I have a question, would it not make more sense to have the Reception section before Personal life? The article seems to skip from a focus on her work/career accomplishments, to Personal life, then back to how her work/career accomplishments were received by critics and art historians. I haven't checked the MOS (but I'm sure you or others working on this have) however as a reader, it seems disjointed to have the sections in that order.
The article is shaping up beautifully thanks to you, Ppt91 and others. Netherzone (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Netherzone, Sure that would be fine. I made the change. That does flow better. Thanks for providing feedback, much apprecitated!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No further/recent feedback, assuming this is  Done, but of course, it can still be revised if desired.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

To do list items to add?

I went through all of our discussions and have found these potential to do items. Should we move them into the "to do" checklist?

Content

  • Rewrite the intro section, particularly thinning out or summarizing the early career information - OrangeSky6791
  • Any changes to the Career subsections (e.g., dates in heading, content, comparison with other themes)?
  • Changes to “Criticism”?
  • Revise Personal life section - Merge Transitions, Travels, Death into Career and Reception sections - Discussions between Ppt91 and OrangeSky
  • Edit the “Relationships” section for accuracy, bisexuality
  • Consistent em / en dash / space per guidelines - Discussions: DocWatson42, Ppt91, CaroleHenson
  • Identify and address inaccuracies in the article

Images

Moved thise up to the #Article improvement progress section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

List of works?

Do we want to create a List of works by Georgia O'Keeffe - OrangeSky6791 might have access to a list, otherwise MOMA installation pages, SIRIS.

I updated the Georgia O'Keeffe#External links, grouping works and adding SIRUS information by type of work (painting, sculpture, etc.) MOMA already had a link, and I added a link to the 2023 installation,
Perhaps these additions to External links are good enough.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

No feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Organization?

Have I missed anything?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

In terms of organization, I think it would be helpful to have sections for the to do items, that can be referred to like this #The Checkered Dress in the to do checklist. That way, there will be targeted discussion - that are not toooo long - and easier to follow-up. Does that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I started that by creating #Finalize image groupings and format and #Accuracy.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Crossed out the items moved to the #Article improvement progress section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I am moving ahead with subsections re: items on the "to do" list under #Article improvement progress. Is that okay with everyone to have separate subsections for to do items?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson Thanks for all the updates. Just getting back to these now, as I was away for most of the day yesterday. I'm happy to take New York section for now and start working on it soon. I'll add my name to to-do for that section! Ppt91talk 16:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No further/recent feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Reference and Bibliography sections

DocWatson42, Regarding your post here, Also, despite their quasi-standardization in Good Articles I'm afraid I find the use of "References" and (especially) "Bibliography" as section titles to be problematic. "References" on its own is fine, but "Bibliography" is used for both lists of creators' publications, and of general references and of cited works. I prefer unambiguously self-explanatory titles, such as "Citations" and "General and cited references", so that casual users know what the sections are for. (Please pardon me—this is a pet peeve.)

I like using what is standard and in the guidelines. In this case, the guidelines seem to show a couple of options including the use of Citations, References, Bibliography.

  • I prefer References for short and long citations, but "Citations" is fine.
  • I prefer Bibliography for the sources for short citations, but "Sources" could be used. (For the body of the article, I prefer "Publications" to "Bibliography" which I think is better and to avoid the Bibliography confusion.)

Any thoughts about that? Does anyone else have an opinion?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:REFERENCES.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: I agree about "Publications" versus "Bibliography", though I also use "Books" if there aren't any other types of publications. —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
DocWatson42 Yes, "Books" is a good section heading, too.
How do you envision us coming to a conclusion on this for the O'Keeffe article? I would be fine with "Citations" and "Sources".–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
"Citations" is fine, but again I prefer more specific and informative section titles, that are also "future-proofed", such as "General and cited sources". Thus even if all of the references are either general or cited a later editor does not have to worry about changing the title. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I changed "References" to "Citations". That seems to make a lot of sense per MOS and Wikipedia:Citing sources, as it is used to describe short and long citations. So, that is Green tickY done, unless anyone has a differing opinion.
Regarding the sources (relevant when I move over the relationship draft), it will be the section for the sources that relate to the sources for the short citations. References or Sources make the most sense to me. Also, References is what is used in Wikipedia:Citing sources. I vote for References.
"General and cited sources", by the nature of qualifiers, seems to be a subset of References or Sources. It is confusing to me.
I know that Ppt91 and OrangeSky have both mentioned that they are busy right now, so I am not sure if we'll get further input on this, but if we do, that would be wonderful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I have been WP:BOLD completing "to do" items... including moving the relationship draft over. I renamed the "Bibliography" section title in the draft to "References" in the article. The "References" section title is not written in stone, so input is appreciated.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No further/recent feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Duplicated personal life info

There is some duplicate personal life info that is outside the "Personal life" section that I will remove or summarize. I have gone back-and-forth about doing this, and settled on best to remove redundant info. Please feel free to edit or revert my edits if you disagree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I completed the edits here. There still is some info about her houses, etc. that could be moved to the Personal life section, but it set the context for her work, so for now, I didn't make all the changes that could be made.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Moved more to Personal life, the sum of which is here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment

There is still some more that could be done to improve the article (See #Article improvement progress), but I think it's in relatively good shape at this point. I will pop back to address comments, suggestions, and requests for changes, but otherwise I will move on to other articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia is that nothing is cast in stone. I took my stab at a number of the issues that came up, but have no pride of authorship... and love it when something I have added is improved upon.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ppt91, Netherzone, DocWatson42, and Orangesky6791:, I have closed out many of our open items. There's a bit left in the "to do" part of #Article improvement progress, but I think the article has come a long way as the result of your input. I hope you are happy with it, too.
The only thing that concerns me is the Georgia O'Keeffe#Personal life section. If there's something that you think needs to be done, go for it. Or, Orangesky6791, feel free to comment here with requests for edit.
Thanks so much for your input! It was all very helpful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Yikes! I just realized I said "no feedback" when I should have said "no further/recent feedback". Having a foggy day, I didn't mean to minimize feedback you provided to get to a final state. My apologies.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The Checkered Dress

"The Checkered Dress" by Hilda Belcher

I don't remember seeing this image before, but I find it very interesting. Vassar says it's a portrait of GO, Smithsonian says it's identifed as GO, and Georgia O'Keeffe Museum doesn't say, but its in a category for GO photographs / clippings.

It was made in 1908. I think it would be really nice to have this in the "Early life and education (1887–1916)", perhaps top-left, or in "Relationship" section.

Do you know anything about this? Do you think it's okay to use it?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson This is really interesting! I'll take a closer look tomorrow, but in the meantime pinging @Netherzone who might know more and who might also be interested in helping with the O'Keeffe project in general (a wonderful possible addition to the team, but of course no pressure). :-) Ppt91talk 00:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping, I'll have a look at the comments here to get a better understanding of this project. Also I should disclose that over the years I've done several paid workshops at the GO museum thru their education department, so I'll refrain from directly editing the article. Netherzone (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Netherzone.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson It does not quite look like her, however, like you said there are two sources that say it is. I am going to see if I can get some type of confirmation from from staff at GOKM, if that is okay with you. I do not want to say its not because I trust the two sources, but I would like to get more information/background on it if I can. If it is her I think it would also be a nice addition, I do not see why it would be a problem using it. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC))
@Orangesky6791 and Ppt91:, I know, my first inclination was that it didn't look like her. The one thing that gets me are the woman's fingers and hands.
It would be lovely if you would check at the museum, and it's great that Ppt91 pulled in someone who might know. I will do a little newspaper and book searching, too, I have become really curious.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
This book, A woman on paper : Georgia O'Keeffe by Anita Pollitzer states that it is Georgia O'Keeffe. It will be great to hear back about this and anything you may have learned.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Good to know, I actually have that book on my desk at work. I will look more into it. Thank you. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC))
Cool, in the version I shared, it's on page 94.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the image to the article here saying that it's "likely" of O'Keeffe and then a note with four sources about their take. We can always modify or remove it if anyone finds out differing info.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No further/recent feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson I know you already checked this off, but I checked with some colleagues and it is O'Keeffe. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC))
Orangesky6791, Thanks so much! I am glad to hear that and have it confirmed!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Dashes

The guidelines are much more complicated than I imagines, particularly around ranges, for dashes. IMO, it would be good to just use a consistent approach, and it sounds like you are so much more aware of the complexities. Do you mind going ahead and making the changes that you feel are the right way to go?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
DocWatson42, I just noticed that there was a comment about em vs. en dashed. So, we wouldn't want to revert a correction.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Would you please be so kind as to point to it? Or is it just the comment about dashes in ranges? —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
DocWatson42. The first two items were at the very bottom of the Option 2 section. (But it's better to discuss it here as it won't get confused being in the middle of older discussions.) I am not sure if you were also talking about your message about dashes. I copied them all here so they are together:
@Ppt91:: Just to note two typos: You've used em dashes in place of en dashes in the year ranges. ^_^; —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
This is also true in the #Discussion subsection below. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, a little more punctuation: As of now there are fifteen spaced en dashes (including for ranges) and six em dashes, including one spaced one. The last needs to go whatever the decision, but per MOS:DASH an article needs to stick to em dashes or spaced en dashes ("In all these cases, use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article"). (I prefer the former, but will abide by the majority opinion.)
—DocWatson42 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
My mistake, Doc, I mixed up who said what.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh, well. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

DocWatson42, I am pulling other copyediting issues here so that their not in the middle of the long "Discussion" section and are together.

  • From your post here that your niche is copyediting and reference formatting, that's wonderful!
  • Regarding fixing quotation marks from here, great! I miss them sometimes, but prefer to use the non-curly versions as is in the guidelines. (I am going to make a separate section re: references from your post)
Please go ahead and make fixes to dashes and quotation marks in the Georgia O'Keeffe article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson, Modernist, Mandarax, TheMindsEye, PDH, Coldcreation, Skyerise, Ppt91, Paleolith, and Mageeking: I also am familiar with MOS:ORDER and layout more generally (the big picture). As for dashes, as I mentioned above, before I make too many changes we should come to a consensus as to em dashes or spaced en dashes. DocWatson42 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Em dashes

Okay, DocWatson42. It will be good to get folks opinion. I took a stab at em dashes, which seemed clear-cut:
Em dashes that were in painting titles. I looked up the titles on SIRIS. They didn't use em dashes, so I made changes to three titles with this edit.
There was one place that an em dash was used instead of a colon for a subtitle in a citation. It is now "Kahlo and O'Keeffe: the formative friendship between two artistic giants" with this edit
The remaining four em dashes are used in the place of commas with no spaces in two sentences, like "In 1946, she began making the architectural forms of her Abiquiú house—patio wall and door—subjects in her work." This follows MOS:EMDASH. No change.
It would be helpful to know if there is agreement or disagreement here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

en dashes

  • From MOS:DASH, "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space, hyphen, or en dash; in such cases, {{snd}} between them will provide the proper formatting." I made a change for the dob-dod in the first line of the intro.
  • en dash without spaces for range of pages - that's a "no brainer", I think. No change.
  • en dash in an article title for title and subtitle in a citation, changed to a colon
  • range of years in section heading, without a space. No change.
  • en dashes in title from the source like "2013–14 Wisconsin Statutes 2013–14 S.84.1021" - left "as is" (i.e., didn't make it 2013–2014). No change.
  • range of years in captions for works, no spaces, like "1903–1905". No change.
  • painting title
    • a number of uses in SIRIS for "Special" works, but often like "Special No. 35", which looks the cleanest, so I made that change
    • "Radiator Building - Night, New York" in SIRIS
    • Changed one to "Waterfall, End of Road, Iao Valley" as in SIRIS
Here are the changes for en dashes.
How is that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Curly apostrophes or quotes

  • did a find and replace on both kinds of curly apostophes - replacing five
  • no curly quote marks found
Here is the edit for the change.
Does that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I updated the en dash list to identified where no change was needed to be clear.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

No feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

From a discussion on User talk:DocWatson42#Georgia O'Keeffe, DocWatson42 and I each removed spaces around en dashes in article titles, one of which was the Radiator building (choosing to deviate from the article's title a smidge).–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Article improvement

@Orangesky6791, Ppt91, DocWatson42, and Netherzone:,

As an FYI, the work we did on the Georgia O'Keeffe #Article improvement progress was mentioned in the news Artists join volunteers, change how women represented in Wikipedia. It's good to get the press. It's also good to think about how I represent women since so many of my work is new articles for women - or expanding and cleaning up articles about women.

I received the link to this within the past week or two: Primer for creating women's biographies that is pretty good.

Advice, tips, and thoughts are appreciated.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @CaroleHenson - How cool is that! Here's an updated link to the article: [2] for some reason the one above didn't work for me. You all did the heavy lifting on the article revision, here's to a great collaboration! Netherzone (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Netherzone. Your input was very helpful, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Native Scholar’s Questions

(Shortened the heading "Native Scholar’s Questions at MOMA Exhibition about O’Keeffe’s Use of New Mexico in Her Art: Should Wikipedia Include?"–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC))

Should we be adding new or different perspectives to the “criticism” or “New Mexico” section of this page to reflect more current Native/Indigenous scholarship? I ask this because the current blockbuster exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art, “Georgia O’Keeffe: To See Takes Time,” includes remarks on specific works by curator Patricia Marroquin Norby, who was appointed in 2020 as the first Indigenous curator and first curator of Native American Art at the nearby Metropolitan Museum of Art. Norby’s comments can be hear in the audio clips featured on the exhibition web page.

Regarding a sketch of the famous patio door at Abiquiu, Norby states: Curator, Patricia Marroquin Norby: As an Indigenous woman, it’s complex to respond to how she understands the patio door. Abiquiú, or Abiquiú, was a Tewa or Hopi Pueblo for many years. O’Keeffe buys this home that was a center for the indigenous slave trade. She embraces it for its aesthetic quality, rather than making any attempt to understand the local history.

But I could really see why she was drawn to the home and especially the patio door. In her images of the door, you get this balance of rectangular shapes, of light and shadows that are repeated over and over to create this visual depth.

There’s moments where I feel really angry at her because of the privileged way that she entered into those spaces. I think eventually during her time in Abiquiú, she understood, that she was a visitor. She was a guest.

But I have a sense of compassion for the challenges that she faced as an artist, as a woman, and someone who was just really working to create her own place in this world.”

Regarding a sketch of a Native art necklace, “Eagle Claw and Bean Necklace,” Norby also states: Curator, Patricia Marroquin Norby: Hello, I’m Patricia Marroquin Norby, Associate Curator of Native American Art at The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

In 1934, Georgia O’Keeffe and her friend drive through Colorado, where O’Keeffe purchases a necklace made of large, black sea beads and eagle claws.

She doesn’t depict them as one long necklace. Instead, she bunches them together into this round form. She uses a very fuzzy application of her charcoal for the beads, but then for the eagle claws, she uses the paper surface as a highlight to create a shiny surface, and so you get this really nice textural conversation between the beads and the claws.

I find that interesting that she refers to them as “Indian beads,” rather than learning the appropriate name for the community or person from whom she purchased them. It reminds me of the fact that, although she lived in Abiquiú, New Mexico for half a century, she never bothered to learn Spanish. She never bothered to learn Tewa. She, on the one hand, loved the community who surrounded her but also she really didn’t extend herself.

That sense of isolation—it’s communicated visually in her work because she often only depicts one item, one subject, something that’s isolated within her image.”

Most of us are now familiar with questions about the appropriation of Indigenous or marginalized cultures by white artists and authors. Should the Wikipedia page reflect this by using material such as these remarks by Norby (she holds a PhD in American Studies and has a new book coming out, so represents a solid academic resource.

But Norby’s passing comment about Abiquiu as a “center for the Indigenous slave trade” would itself require some resourcing (I’ve been looking into that, and it’s complex.”

So I would love so input on this material and how, if at all, you think we should be including perspectives such as that of Norby. Do you know of other resources or references or publications or articles that would be relevant.

This topic could eventually be extended to encompassing the series of work O’Keeffe did in the early 1930s on Indigenous Kachina dolls. There’s a book on this edited by Barbara Buhler Lynes and Carolyn Kastner, “Georgia O’Keeffe in New Mexico: Architecture, Katsinam, and the Land” (2012). Should the page also be revised to include some coverage of the Kachina work? (Profgjay (talk)) Profgjay (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of information here. It seems that there are several possible ways to add info.
Specific aspects of the 2023 installation could be added under External links under the "MoMA 2023 installation: "Georgia O'Keeffe: To See Takes Time" link Green tickY
Update the Patricia Marroquin Norby Green tickY and the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum articles. Perhaps also the relative Pueblo articles.
Perhaps extra content or a note after "In 1946, she began making the architectural forms of her Abiquiú house—the patio wall and door—subjects in her work.[78]" could be interesting if not heavy-handed. There shouldn't be a lot in the article about someone close to the subject of the article. See WP:Conflict of interest.
About the indigenous slave trade, I would think that would be best in the Puebloans article or in the specific Pueblos (Puebloans#New Mexico)... and then perhaps a sentence or See also to link to, if appropriate.
I can see having a section for notable exhibits.
Does anyone else have thoughts about this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
update the Georgia O'Keeffe article with Norby's key/salient opinions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I would like to see the New Mexico section enriched with comments or perspectives from Norby and other Indigenous scholars.I will try to draft something or suggest specific sentences. Profgjay (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Added two Green tickY for completed items and struck out a misunderstanding.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Updates

  • Updated Patricia Marroquin Norby article. There's an article here with her critiques of O'Keeffe's art, but it's in an interview format, which to me doesn't seem to have editorial input. Is anyone else hesitant to use interview format?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    Personally I'm not opposed to citing interviews as long as the claim is clear, that is, this is an opinion expressed by one scholar advocating for an Indigenous perspective on O'Keeffe's work in New Mexico. Profgjay (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I was confused. Somehow I thought that Norby became the curator at the Georgia O'Keeffe museum, so I struck out a sentence about Norby's comments in the GO article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I found articles from searching << "patricia marroquin norby" "georgia o'keeffe" >> to update the Georgia O'Keeffe article with Norby's key/salient opinions. The updates to her article help to establish why she's a good expert to comment on O'Keeffe's work from an indigenous person's perspective.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry, am new to this process. Did you already add a comment in the article itself establishing Norby's credentials as a good expert, or are you just suggesting we do so? I didn't see any more mentions of her except in the external links. Profgjay (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Still interested?

Profgjay, I am just checking in to see if you are still interested in adding content. If so, what do you think about what I have suggested?

Just to be clear on one part that I didn't address in the suggestions, I don't think it's appropriate to mention that O'Keeffe did not learn Spanish or Tewa. I am not quite sure, either, about stating what O'Keeffe should or shouldn't put into her art. Perhaps there can be statements, though, about the significance of artifacts or heritage to Puebloans or Native Americans as it relates to content in O'Keeffe's work of art. (I hope that makes sense.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I had family in town this weekend and just got back to seeing your many good comments and suggestions. I agree with the points made here about making inappropriate demands after the fact about what O'Keeffe would have learned or put into her art. Statements about the significance of objects or places or heritage could be useful. For example, O'Keeffe's depictions of Kachina dolls could be found offensive by Indigenous people. My understanding is that the O'Keeffe Museum owns one or more but does not show them. One of the curators suggested the Wikipedia page might mention her production of such images within the context of describing her New Mexico period, but we shouldn't provide images. Profgjay (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Profgjay, That is really interesting! Okay, I will bear that in mind. I appreciate your input on this!
Please feel free to identify sources that may be similarly sensitive.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Norby on O'Keeffe

I have started a draft here Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/Norby on O'Keeffe about Norby's perception of O'Keeffe's work. Feel free to add to the Draft or add items in the Discuss section.

I am starting to wonder if this could be a separate article with a small section in the Georgia O'Keeffe article. We'd likely need to get other opinions. We can see how this draft goes and then take it from there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

At this point I think the draft you've done could sensibly go into the "Art Criticism and Scholarship" section under "Reception." The addition could be conceived or justified as covering the contemporary reception of O'Keeffe's work by Native scholars/Indigenous critics. Norby is not the only one, so there may be other citations or quotations to be added here. I'm doing more research. Norby's critique was developed during her writing of her dissertation, which is scheduled to appear as a book. That book could provide more material. But I think what you've done for now is a good start. I may try a sentence or two addition for context. Profgjay (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good! I replied to your comment at Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/Norby on O'Keeffe#Discuss.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

2023 renovation notice

To see the status of all the discussion about the article improvement through July 13, 2023 on this page, see #Article improvement progress.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

For requests starting July 20, 2023, see #Native Scholar’s Questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgia_O%27Keeffe/Archive_4&oldid=1264982921"