Talk:List of 20th-century women artists

[Untitled]

Just begun, too tiny, please add what you can. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But I suggest we limit the list to artists who already have their own Wikipedia page. No redlinks, please. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologia and Explanation

I started this page about a month ago, and it looks like it's been basically me working on it, so I figured I'd explain my rationales. Feel free to disagree.

1. This is a list of women artists worldwide who produced significant visual art during the twentieth century. It is not a list of artists born in the twentieth century. I am going back and forth about artists whose last works predate 1905 or whose first works postdate 1995, although I have not yet run across someone who meets those criteria. It is also for this reason that I have eliminated the subheadings for artists born after 1970; if I find one such who started producing significant work around or before 1995, I will probably include her.

2. This list is for fine and applied visual arts as they are generally understood: painting, printmaking, illustration, sculpture, architecture, textiles, murals, stained glass, photography, and so forth. I am inclined to be inclusive as regards illustrators, puppetmakers, cartoonists, and other women usually considered only on the margins of fine art, as long as they have produced significant or influential work. I have also included filmmakers and fashion designers if they are closely aligned to the fine arts world. It is not a list for musicians, composers, actors, puppeteers, dancers, singers, or other people generally considered performers (although it does include what are called "performance artists", as that is a specialized category of the fine arts world), nor for novelists or poets -- unless such persons also happen to be visual artists as defined above. I'm going back and forth about fashion designers (unless they have really obvious connections to the fine arts world). I realize this is an arbitrary division, but it's one the world has handed us.

3. Everyone on this list is a woman. If I run across a transgendered artist or one who identifies as a woman (I haven't yet, as far as I know) who otherwise meets the criteria here, I will include her.

4. This list is taken from already existing Wikipedia articles. No redlinks, please. If there is an artist who should be on this list and she hasn't got a Wikipedia entry, write up her entry first and then link to it here.

5. If the Wikipedia article does not include a birthdate, I have not listed the artist here. This may be too extreme a position, I don't know.

6. I have some criteria about how significant an artist has to be to be included, but this is very open to interpretation and disagreement. The criteria are: Inclusion in a written history of art published by a recognized book publisher; or in articles in recognized art periodicals or newspapers or journals; or whose work is in the collection of accredited museums; or whose work is in major collections; or who has received grants or awards from governments or other recognized entities; or who is recognized by peers in the field as having importance.

7. References will be checked, significance will be considered. A badly-written Wikipedia article will not disqualify an artist, but an unreferenced puff piece full of opinion and advertising words probably will.

Thanks, if anyone ever reads this, and as I said, feel free to disagree. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and One or Two More Things

I've tried to be inclusive worldwide, but part of the nature of the English-Language Wikipedia is that it's mighty USA-centered. As a result, this list is skewed towards US artists. Hopefully this will change. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As regards #6 above, criteria for significance-- Exhibits in a vanity gallery or publication or credentials from a vanity press do not count. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Date order

I think it would be better if birth date order was kept throughout and alphabetical only employed for those artists with the same birth year. Ty 03:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

Bobjtls (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)I am creating an entry for Australian artist, Yvonne Boag (born 1954). I have draft content on my sandbox page. When it is ready, how can I move the content from my sandbox to a live page?

I have already added Mona Hatoum. But this should be added too, it is surprising they aren't in the list yet. They are all in wiki already

• Orlan 1947 (performance artist)
• Laurie Anderson 1947 (performance artist)
• Valie Export 1940 (performance artist, video installations, photography)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anacigon (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Imagery

Visual art needs to be seen; stop vandalizing images...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleting valid and important images

Your interpretation of NFCC#8, no valid article-specific NFCC rationale - is dead wrong and verges on vandalism. The policy states Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. These paintings precisely need to be seen to increase readers understanding of the topic. Don't do it again. The images are of important works by important artists, who played an important part in the visual arts of the 20th century and in case you don't know - this is an article about the visual arts of the 20th century. Visual art needs to be seen - please read WP:NFCC more carefully...Modernist (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Modernist, first, strike your accusation that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is vandalizing the page. His edits are so incredibly far from any definition of the word vandalism that your comment is laughable. Second, NFCC #8 is violated even in instances where an image is used in an article about the painter unless the painting is the subject of critical commentary in the article. Randomly throwing up some non-free images in a list article is a huge violation of NFCC #8. Ryan Vesey 23:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Furthermore, I have undone your restoration of the images. If you restore them again without getting consensus here, which isn't going to happen, or going to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to learn more, I will bring you to ANI. Ryan Vesey 23:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

First - I don't think so - looks like blatant vandalism to me. Second - these images need to be seen, perhaps you object to list articles and perhaps that should be addressed. However the images clearly depict some of the work by the people listed here and should be visible - the nature of visual artwork is that it needs to be seen. I don't appreciate your threats...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore consensus will determine this nonsense...Modernist (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:VANDALISM-"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Neither your misguided edits nor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' enforcement of our Non-free content policy are vandalism because neither of you are attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Vesey (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation - I agree with this - Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia which is precisely why I used the terms I used...Modernist (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Here via WT:WPVA posting. HW's latest revert appears justified in that adding the images doesn't fulfill the fair use rationale. The images need to be vital to the article, such as an article or section about the painting itself, not just helpful to visualize an example of a listed painter. If there are other diffs worth looking at, please link them. czar · · 23:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• WP:NFCC#9 says that non-free images aren't allowed on disambiguation pages. This page is very similar to a disambiguation page: it lists a number of items with links to them and not much else. Also, none of the paintings is critically discussed, so they all violate WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with Ryan here: this page should not have any non-free images as it cannot provide context per NFCC #8. Modernist, you have a very warped view of vandalism if you honestly believe upholding WP:NFC (a guideline) is the dreaded V word. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the images should be used...Modernist (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • What you think and what the policies and guidelines permit are currently quite different. If any of them are minimalists, their work may be worth including. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Guidelines and policies are very different and several guidelines have several interpretations...Modernist (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Since you want to make the distinction between guidelines and policies WP:NFCC is a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations." making it essentially more important than any others. Ryan Vesey 00:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
          • And, Modernist, you've yet to show how these images can pass NFCC #8. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Excuse me? I did explain above - however 3 of you disagree with my explanation...Modernist (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• You'll have to try harder than that. At least try to make a rationale argument to support your side of things. Ryan Vesey 00:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. How is not having the images detrimental to an understanding of women artists who were active in the 20th century? I fail to see that in your "proof". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• My understanding of 'Fair use' of non-free images is that the image must be used to illustrate an article about the subject of the image. If non-free images are used to illustrate a list, that sounds to me like decoration, rather than dire necessity. Sionk (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not always, but it's certainly the safest stance to take. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Images that illustrate the subject of the article and their use is justified in helping to educate the reader as to the meaning of the article...Modernist (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • To the point exclusion is detrimental to a reader's understanding? No, you've not shown that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • We agree to disagree here - basically my general point here is a visual artwork needs to be seen in order to inform the reader as to the meaning of the artists work...Modernist (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Meaning of the work, not the artist or her name. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Like Crisco, I don't understand why a list article needs to be illustrated with non-free images. It doesn't help educate anyone. Sionk (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
              • It appears, at the very least, that a WP:CONSENSUS to not include the images has formed. Modernist, I suggest you drop the stick and perhaps actually read copyright law, instead of relying on your gut. Copyright law is meant to be universal within a country: "for some it's the design, for some as you say it might be the surface" does not apply in copyright law; for all it's the design (or lack of). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Images of art works whether free or non-free educate our readers. The distinction is whether or not we can use those images and how we can use those images. The image educates the viewer as to what the artists work is, does, and means.....Modernist (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not under the policies and guidelines cited above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I will abide by consensus, never said otherwise...Modernist (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Because this is a list about people, non-free art is absolutely inappropriate to use. Find images of the women listed in here to use instead. Now, on the other hand, if there is an article like "Women artists" or the like, to document the effort to have women recognized as equals to male artists, and highlighting and explaining some of the more critical pieces of work (like over at History of painting) then there might be allowance to non-free art examples there. But absolutely not on a list about people. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point, taken...Modernist (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey says "Second, NFCC #8 is violated even in instances where an image is used in an article about the painter unless the painting is the subject of critical commentary in the article."[1] Do we find policy supportive of such language? Bus stop (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Non-free content note 1 " NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article. For historical information, see RfC Jan 2011, RfC Sep 2012, and RfC Dec 2012.". Ryan Vesey 04:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

NFCC#8 reads: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."[2] There is no language in NFCC#8 relating to "critical commentary in the article."[3] Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no difference between my statement "critical commentary in the article" and the actual wording "be significantly discussed within the article". Contextual significance means it must be significant in context. In non-free content discussions, that has been determined to mean that unless the image is of the subject of the article, it must be described in the article for it to be included; therefore, it cannot be included in list articles. Ryan Vesey 12:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Essentially correct. At Ruma Maida (different media format, but point still stands) there are two non-free images. The first is a poster, which is useful for identification and thus always (in my experience) allowed. The second is a screenshot, which illustrates techniques used in shooting which are discussed for more than a paragraph in text, which is allowed. In a list article, such as Citra Award for Best Director, such non-free images would not be allowed to illustrate the film because there is no contextual significance (especially when there is a link) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey—policy does not support a statement that you made. You may say that under WP:NFCC#8 we must demonstrate "contextual significance" for a non-free image that we may wish to use in an article. You may also say that under WP:NFCC#8 we can only use a non-free image if "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." But you may not say as you do in your first post in this thread that "NFCC #8 is violated even in instances where an image is used in an article about the painter unless the painting is the subject of critical commentary in the article."[4] WP:NFCC#8 would not be violated in such instances because WP:NFCC#8 does not call for "critical commentary in the article". Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Every level headed person here has supported my statement, I'm not going to discuss it with you any longer. Ryan Vesey 19:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Bus stop, that is WP:WIKILAWYERING to the utmost degree and I'm disgusted to have read it. If you can't find the implied "in the article" or "on Wikipedia" there, I must question your command of English. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Crisco 1492—WP:NFCC#8 reads as follows: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Notice that it does not say that an image must be "the subject of critical commentary in the article."[5] I don't think we should deviate from the actual language of policy. Is it so difficult to quote the actual language of policy? Is it WP:WIKILAWYERING to wish to adhere to the actual language in policy? Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The topic here is a list of women artists, mainly for navigation purposes and little else. Illustrations are an optional extra, they're certainly not vital to understanding the list. Sionk (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sionk—you say in one post "If non-free images are used to illustrate a list, that sounds to me like decoration, rather than dire necessity" and you say in another post "I don't understand why a list article needs to be illustrated with non-free images. It doesn't help educate anyone." I'm taken aback by these comments. An article is an educational tool. To the extent that images are absent from an article such as List of 20th-century women artists the article suffers in its ability to educate, and to the extent that well-chosen images are included, the article succeeds in educating. The highlights of artworks produced by 20th-century women artists are educational. Visual imagery is just that—visual imagery. The educational component of visual imagery is taken in by seeing the artwork. These are the highlights of a century's worth of art production by women artists. The reader receives a degree of educational fulfillment by seeing well-chosen artworks from this contingent of visual art. I can agree that all women artists are not represented by examples of their artwork. But those absences do not justify additional absences. The work by Sonia Delaunay, Rythme, 1938, enjoys virtually iconic status. Can you argue that is "decoration" to the article? What is the educational dimension to an article if important images can be dispensed with? At least you have to be aggrieved if copyright law prevents the inclusion of what might be educational visual art material. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Bus stop, if you believe that the NFCC is so unclear as to validate the use of fair use images here then please discuss it at the talk page. Perhaps they will have to state explicitly "subject of critical commentary in the article(s) in which it is used" to avoid Wikilawyering like this. Consensus appears, to me, to be quite clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Non-free files in this article clearly violate WP:NFLIST along with WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. Werieth (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• I wasn't notified of this discussion by the OP, so I'm coming in rather late and have little to add. I'm certainly grateful for all the supportive comments. Perhaps it would be useful to add a brief statement to WP:NFLIST emphasizing that nonfree images are generally inappropriate in list articles without substantial editorial content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a list article where non-free images are appropriate? I know for a fact that we don't allow non-free images of people in list articles about them (see List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania). Ryan Vesey 02:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

P. Buckley Moss?

Is there some reason P. Buckley Moss (b. 1933) isn’t included in your list? Her Wikipedia entry is here: P._Buckley_Moss Thanks, --Jackftwist (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done, added.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Maman de Louise Bourgeois - Bilbao.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Entries without an articles

Someone added yesterday a bunch of entries which have articles on the Polish Wikipedia but not in our project. Should we remove these? I have no idea what is the relation between notability criteria in English and Polish Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gabriele Münter Abend im Park (Nightfall in St. Cloud).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Margaret Keane

Could not find Margaret Keane in the list. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Keane

 Done, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)