Talk:Louis le Brocquy/Archive 1

{{talk archive}}

Stub time?

I have made a few attempts to repair the page, but its hopeless. Suggest its cut back to stub, and we start again. Ceoil 22:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this article too long or what?

For a not-so-famous artist (outside of Ireland, at least) it seems odd that his entry is longer than Matisse's, longer than Picasso's, longer than Cezanne's, longer than Francis Bacon's, it's like the longest page on any painter. And, coming from someone with a graduate degree in Fine Arts, I must say, I never heard of the guy. Maybe clean it up a little bit: not all his movements need be mentioned, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.8.83 (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Improving article

I cherish Louis le Brocquy's art and applaud the hard work and devotion shown in this elegantly written, highly informative article. There exist, however, two issues that fly in the face of Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines that hinder more than help the reader: 1. non-neutral tone - the article reads like a personal and promotional essay rather than an objective encyclopedic entry; and 2. there are no sources listed. For example, noted French journalist, artist, and biographer Gilles Plazy is mentioned but where's the source? --Jumbolino (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Improving article

The previous post may have been a bit harsh, or at least will seem so to his, no doubt, well intentioned admirers. So i removed it. But the points made stand. Many of the things said about le Brocquy in the wiki entry belong in his promotional sales blurb. Statements along the lines of “ x sold for Y and is therefore of equal in quality to Z” is the sort found in literature produced by estate agents, not serious art critics. And its all very Celtic Tiger bubble froth. Someone having too much money and spending it liberally does not necessarily make them a good critic, and certainly should not be used as the sole basis on which to rate an artist against artists of the caliber of Bacon and Freud. Who can take that seriously? And the fact that there is nothing to back it up seriously cheapens the artist in my view. And " headline attention on the international marketplace" is the blurb taken from the auctioneers who sold the work. What do you expect them to say? And the entry is far too long to the point that I can only imagine le Brocquy biggest fans ever actually reading it. And you have to remember that the entry should be to inform people of le Brocquy, give an outline of his biographical details etc. Imagine some poor art lover from Barcelona looking this up. In the entry it reads: “ It has become pretentious to talk of an artist's humility”. Who writes this awful stuff? Yet, perhaps those who write such lines as “marking him as the fourth painter in Ireland and Britain to be evaluated within a very select group of artists, alongside Lucian Freud, David Hockney and Francis Bacon.[3] «  should remember his ‘humility’. For that is some statement. The other artists mentioned have universally received great critic acclaim, hence their work sells for large sums. And we must remember this entry is on a living artist so should adhere to certain conditions etc.

I agree - the whole page is so fanciful and ott it might bean idea to take it back to stub and start again. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just did this now. Ceoil 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

{{talk archive}}