Talk:Jon Luvelli

Exhibition Section Modification

User:Lopifalko Thank you for your edits to improve this topic. While researching for the Jon Luvelli article, there were clear statements made by State Historical Society of Missouri stating "his works within the State Historical Society of Missouri's permanent art collection" and the Boone County Historical Society releasing the following statement "Luvelli is the first Street Photographer to have artwork placed in our museum’s permanent art collection". I believe these statements support my original section title 'Collections' instead of 'Exhibitions'. When an artist's work is exhibited at a given gallery or museum, the artwork doesn't automatically join the instiutions permanent archived collection. When artwork is inducted into a historical institution's collection it should be stated as such. What are you thoughts? --MarPatton (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree and I did figure out that most were indeed collections, so I restored the "Collections" title over "Exhibitions", perhaps before you wrote the above. I then split out one as it is an exhibition and it is possibly this one that confused me into renaming the section originally. What was One Block at ICP and Galley A Gallery? in the Collections section, is that an exhibition? [Having the years they were added, and having what was held in the collection preceding the name of the collection, confused me into thinking these were exhibitions, because we use that syntax for exhibitions and not for collections.]

You removed the "Failed verification" warning for http://shsmo.org/art/exhibits/#luvelli but that page does not appear to mention Luvelli. --Lopifalko (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It appears the above link had been altered from it's originally state and I've replaced it with https://shsmo.org/news/2017/11/20 which does mention Luvelli. You've added "better source needed" on the International Center of Photography collection entry. When I use the direct URL from the ICP database and click to view from the References section it's appearing as needing to log in to view. This collection is also found listed in WorldCat, do you think it would be best to use this citation instead? --MarPatton (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's see what the WorldCat page looks like. --Lopifalko (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.worldcat.org/title/one-block-columbia-missouri/oclc/951909526 --MarPatton (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I misunderstood, I thought you meant WorldCat described the book being held at ICP. We need a source that says ICP holds the book in its permanent collection. --Lopifalko (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

During my research I found information on the International Center of Photography Collection here https://www.icp.org/facilities/library and searching Luvelli in the Online Catalogue. The ICP Library is dedicated to the entire discipline of photography and houses an extensive collection of photobooks and other resources. Once you've pulled his name in the catalogue this is the appropriate page I originally used for my citation. Please review. --MarPatton (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You mean this --Lopifalko (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure we include libraries as permanent collections. I will have to check. --Lopifalko (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is the link for the citation. Would you like to try and insert it? Okay, let me know, thank you. --MarPatton (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hoary, do you know if a book held in ICP's library counts as being held in a permanent collection? or even a permanent public collection (which is what the "Collections" section represents)? Thanks. --Lopifalko (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

If a unique and historically or culturally significant manuscript is in a given library, say so. If a printed book such as a Gutenberg bible or Shakespeare first folio is in a given library, perhaps say so. But most printed books? ICP's library will have books by thousands of photographers. This entry under "Collections" is absurd. -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thanks for clarifying. --Lopifalko (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Various points about removals and changes

Thank you User:Lopifalko for your help to improve this article. I take the research I do for articles and the my interest in photography and arts very seriously. I noticed some of the content you removed and/or reworded leaves the article vacant of important artist specific details. I would like to discuss, reconsidering, and together, rephrasing what I feel should be included. The first edit in the second sentence 'He has made black and white images depicting idiosyncrasies of people in rural areas.' Instead of the replacement 'He has made', I believe stating he is 'known for his black and white images depiciting idiocyncrasies of people in rural areas.' is better as with minmal research it's very apparent he is known for his use and style of black and white photography. Second edit, is the removal of 'monochromatic master' statement and the questioning the reliability of LensCulture. I agree, LensCulture is a publication that supports artist's, and that is why I believe it provides imporant information on such a niche specific article(s). It provides an important prespective to Wiki readers who are discovering or learning more about individuals. Finally, the addition of Self-Published under the Publications section. I have not found anything that supports the book 'One Block' was self-published. WorldCat states the following under Publisher: [United States?] : [Everyday Street Books], [2015] ©2015 and so does Amazon which is where I found and pulled the referenced ISBN. Thank you again, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts. --MarPatton (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MarPatton for being accommodating and for offering to discuss. I have seen you making very worthwhile contributions elsewhere on photography articles, such as sourcing collections. With this article, I have tried to get to the meat of the actual achievements by the subject; the same with statements about the work by others, removing empty statements. I do this in the hope of creating a better encyclopedia entry, where all claims are solid and well sourced, event if they are few.

Bear in mind that the subject of this article appears only to be an emerging photographer. As far as the article is concerned he has one book (which is held in the library at ICP), his work is held in the collections of two local historical societies, one of which has provided him with his only solo exhibition. All the non-primary sources cited are local to his region (that is, everything apart from LensCulture and StreetHunters). There is not yet much to hang an article on.

Regarding "He has made" versus "he is known for", MOS:LEADBIO says that the opening paragraph should say "Why the person is notable". How I have interpreted this across many articles is to list directly what the subject does that is considered notable, and not to say that they are "known for" this because that is self evident by being described in the lead. It feels a more direct manner, in which to write an encyclopedia should be written. I am not wedded to this but I consider it an improvement.

Regarding "the removal of 'monochromatic master'", I do not think "monochromatic master" gives us much description about the subject's work. I think that describing him as a "master" at this early stage in his career is inappropriate and would need a noted source by which to say so.

Wikipedia is founded on independent reliable sources. LensCulture, being a site that photographers sign up to for promotion of their work, is not that. Independent reliable sources are the only sources we can accept perspective from.

When I came to the article, the book listing said "One Block: Photographs from Jon Luvelli, Jon Luvelli, 2015". "Jon Luvelli" is in the position where we list the book publisher, hence replacing it with "Self-published". Perhaps the syntax wasn't following the format I assumed it was, in which case it should be reverted. Given I can find no evidence on the web for "Everyday Street Books", I suspect Luvelli is its publisher, without knowing better, but I could be wrong. The book's back cover reads: "One block presents some of the greatest images from Luvelli, one of the world's most unique and outstanding street photographers. This collector's publication displays Luvelli's power to capture the essence of the Midwestern United States unlike any artist has done before". This is a degree of hyperbole that is hard to match. --Lopifalko (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Lopifalko Thank you for your explanations, and I hope you see my point of view as much as I see and understand yours. This is what the Wiki community is about; working together to achieve the common goal of creating useful articles for the world to enjoy. After looking over the edits that you've made today, I would like to discuss reverting and together, reconstructing the lead bio. On MOS:LEADBIO it states "relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm" and I feel the editing, moving, and removing that has been done has suppressed relevant material greatly. After looking over several other photographers articles; Matt Stuart, Boogie, etc. that have relevant material in the lead bio, I would like to make the following suggestion.

"Jon Luvelli" (born 1979) is an Italian-American street photographer. He is known for his black and white images of people in rural America. His images depict idiosyncrasies of people in rural mid-western townscapes. His work conveys social messages, addressing economic and civil issues, in the form of macabre candid photography. His subject matter is associated with the underside of humanity.

The statement "He has made black and white images of people in Columbia, Missouri." is misleading as research shows he lives in Columbia, Missouri but actively photographs subjects in rural America including all of Missouri. Refer to these sources:

• Luvelli's fine art photography has garnered worldwide attention for its distinguished images of Midwestern townscapes. AND His work casts an aesthetic spotlight on contemporary life in the rural routes and small-town streets of the Show-Me State.
• As a passionate artist who is constantly working, beating the pavement every day, he creates an urban fabric of rural areas. AND Jon Luvelli lives and works in Missouri, United States.
• The State Historical Society of Missouri, recognising Luvelli’s fine art photography and his contribution to the portrayal of Midwestern rural townscapes, will be sharing a selection of his work in their permanent art collection.

As an active editor who's spent over two years researching and gathering material for this article (because I've observed the power of his work through my studies and teachings) I would like to discuss revisions and edits before they're published so I can offer my research and sources I've tracked down. Thank you. --MarPatton (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Lopifalko the recent edit in the lead bio and the second paragraph in the 'Career' section now sound repetative. I don't think Columbia, Missouri needs to be mentioned when rural America is stated, as it follows under the same geographical area. Again this is not the main point in describing this artist. The way it was written above, conveys who and what this person is. It's important and recommended by Wikipedia standards that the lead bio contain information that explains who and what the person of interest does/is known for. The macabre style and issues addressed in his work are a very important element to the art the artist delivers, and holds just as much importance as his focus of rural America. I've given my suggestion in my previous note from earlier today. Please respond letting me know if you agree so I may update this article accordingly and redirect my attention to other articles I've been working on. --MarPatton (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If you have "research and sources" that you have "tracked down", and they are considered reliable, then the best place for them is in the article where we can both use them.

It cannot be said that he is "known" without independent reliable sources to show that he is notable / known beyond his locality.

"His work conveys social messages, addressing economic and civil issues, in the form of macabre candid photography." cannot go in the lead yet as it is unsourced. There is so much more unarguably valid info that can be added to the lead, solid facts that are supported by sources: the book, the exhibition and the collections. I moved the unsubstantiated info out of the lead, into the body (ideally it would be removed entirely until sources can be added for it), at which point it can then be summarised in the lead.

You mention the Matt Stuart article, the way I see it your point rather proves my own point: its lead is a collection of basic and well sourced facts. It does not give any description of his work (if I returned my attention to it now then I would add that, but have neglected to so far). You also mention the Boogie article, again its lead is very brief and to the point, with but the briefest description of his work: "documentary and portrait photographs of people on the margins of society and for his street photography". It does not mention his books or exhibitions, which I would add were I again to turn my attention back to that article.

If you can write the Columbia / rural info in the lead better than I then please go ahead. I have worded it in a way that reflects that most of the work described in the article was made in Columbia (the book, the exhibition, one of the collections), whilst also reflecting the fact at least one of the sources talks of rural areas too.

References

Faith

I read:

The Columbia Daily Tribune called it "a masterful exhibit" and considered his process, biblical faith, translating in the substance of his work as evidence of society's collective faith.

I can't parse this, specifically:

his process, biblical faith, translating in the substance of his work

If (or so far as) it means he has "biblical faith" (=Christian faith?), then I don't see that in the article. But then I can't claim to understand the article, whose penultimate paragraph turns somewhat mystical and whose last paragraph seems to impose some sort of Christian message.

Small point, but the Columbia Daily Tribune doesn't say anything. Rather, Aarik Danielsen does. -- Hoary (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hoary The statement above is not referring or implying the artist's religious beliefs, but rather the faith of humanity because of the type of subjects he photographs. To address your last statement, mentioning the Columbia Daily Tribune doesn't say the referenced information hold's no valid point. According to WP:BIASED because the newspaper is a reilable source of information, with editorial control, it therefore follows Wikipedia guidelines. --MarPatton (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

MarPatton, although English is my first language and I like to think that I'm at least averagely able to parse syntactically complex sentences, I remain unable to parse The Columbia Daily Tribune called it "a masterful exhibit" and considered his process, biblical faith, translating in the substance of his work as evidence of society's collective faith. Does this mean the paper "considered his process biblical faith" (i.e. considered it to be biblical faith)? If yes it does, then a start would be to remove the comma and optionally add "to be". But what process is this? And how can any process be considered a faith? If no it doesn't mean this, then I haven't a clue what it means. And translating what into what? Meanwhile, the newspaper may and probably does publish material by "the editors" or similar; this can be attributed to the newspaper. Meanwhile, the article in question is clearly labeled as written by one Aarik Danielsen, and this is what a Wikipedia article citing it should say about it. Thus in the article Jill Freedman, for example:

• "Andy Grundberg would also note" (not "The New York Times would also note")
• "A. D. Coleman wrote of the book" (not "The New York Times wrote of the book")
• "A contemporary reviewer for Popular Photography started by observing that" (not "Popular Photography started by observing that")
• "Andy Grundberg wrote" (not "The New York Times wrote")
• "Maggie Steber has said" (not "The New York Times has said")

However:

• "one that Publishers Weekly said"

because Publishers Weekly doesn't attribute reviews to particular writers. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)