Talk:Monochrome painting

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 October 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

On 17 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Monochrome (visual arts). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Untitled

This article is poorly written and reads like a term paper, tying together artists under a theoretical construct that is simplistic, unnecessary and unfounded. I have studied this "period" of art history (though the period covers about 100 years or so) and it is my opinion that the subject "Meditative art" is not supported by either a strong theoretical or aesthetic similarity between these artists, or by any significant scholarship I am aware of. The important artists covered by this article, and the important groupings to which they belong, are all covered by pages on Wikipedia. There's no need for this one.

Palladian 07:11, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

until recently i was mostly responsible for this page, and i agree with most of this criticism. in order to justify the overlap of artists mentioned in this article with their own articles on wikipedia, i hope to provide more specific examples of relevant works which are by necessity overlooked in more general surveys of these artists.

the title "meditative art" is unfortunate, but i dont know how to change it. it is a remnant from the original tree outline of articles which needed to be written. the heading was "meditative art [monochrome painting]"; most surveys of modern art would have these two labels reversed in importance; many would not even use 'meditative art.'

that there is no 'significant scholarship' on this topic was most of the impetus for starting this article. i wrote it out of a sense that it was needed; i that found very little writing focussed on monochrome painting either in books or on the web, yet at the same time, i found it briefly mentioned very frequently in history books and art magazines. accepting that my writing style was awkward and that my knowledge of the topic was not in-depth enough to be anywhere near authoritative, i merely hoped to encourage more discussion and to provide a framework for a better resource of knowledge specifically dealing with this topic. In this regard i am very grateful for recent contributions to the article by others.

Decembertexture 21:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs depth

I've given this article considerable attention in the last two months. It needs expansion and depth in each section and an image or two, but really it is a subject worthwhile working on. I'd like to see a Still painting, or a Resnick painting or a Pousette-Dart contrasted with a textured Ryman. Modernist 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs more pictures. 70.109.124.172 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed

it'slikely that you're more qualified than i to make these changes, and you are certainly free to do so, so please do. respecting copyright, especially with regard to images, is the only real concern. Decembertexture 23:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

op art?

maybe something about op art or about a relevant op artist; it might be a good addition. anyone? Decembertexture 08:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

This article has vastly improved, Modernist 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References which support that anti-art be mentioned in the article

Varvara Stepanova: Lecture on Constructivism, 22 December 1921.In: Peter Noever: Aleksandr M. Rodchenko - Varvara F. Stepanova. The Future Is Our Only Goal. Munich: Prestel, 1991, pp. 174-178. "From here, Constructivism proceeds to the negation of all art in its entirety, and calls into question the necessity of a specific activity of art as creator of a universal aesthetic."
"I reduced painting to its logical conclusion and exhibited three canvases: red, blue, and yellow. I affirmed: this is the end of painting." - Alexander Rodchenko.
Rodchenko, A. and V. Stepanova (1975) [1920] 'The Programme of the Productivist Group', in Benton and Benton (eds), pp. 91-2. "1. Down with art, long live technical science. 2. Religion is a lie. Art is a lie. 3. Destroy the last remaining attachment of human thought to art. . . . 6. The collective art of today is constructive life."
Pam Meecham and Julie Sheldon. "Modern art: a critical introduction". Routledge, 2005, p 148 : "Rodchenko was disillusioned with easel painting which he in fact 'gave up' in 1921 to concentrate upon the relatively mechanised processes of photography, photomontage and graphic design. For him 'art has no place in modern life', but photography, particularly experimental photography as opposed to 'connoisseurial photographs', was the ultimate anti-bourgeois, anti-art practice."
J. M. Bernstein. "Against voluptuous bodies: late modernism and the meaning of painting". Stanford University Press, 2006, p. 247 :"The anti-art moment of modernist works, the moment that Duchamp and Rodchenko attempt to make complete, enacts art's desire to be world and not art; but only as art, as semblance, can art evince that desire, perform it."
Larry Shiner. “The Invention of Art: A Cultural History”. University of Chicago Press, 2003, p. 256.“If the provocations of Tzara seem merely naughty and those of Breton overly esoteric, the anti-art declarations of the Russian constructivists were potentially of greater social importance, given constructivism's roots in marxist theory and its opportunity to help build a new society.” (...) ""The spell of painting was broken and ""construction"" had taken its place for artists such as Aleksandr Rodchenko, Vavara Stepanova, and Lyubov Popova, who combined it with socialist commitment to become leaders of the First Working Group of Constructivists. One of their early manifestos declared: 1. Down with art, long live technical science. 2. Religion is a lie. Art is a lie. 3. Destroy the last remaining attachment of human thought to art.... 6. The collective art of today is constructive life. (Elliot 1979,130; Lodder 1983,94-99) And what should take the place of "art"? Construction. One should simply participate in producing a useful object."

Armando Navarro (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia guidelines on the use of See also : "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."Armando Navarro (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Stevens Curl. "A dictionary of architecture". Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 162 : "Constructivism. Anti-aesthetic, anti-art, supposedly pro-technology (in that it favoured the apparently logical use of man-made industrial materials and processes such as welding), Left-wing movement originating in the USSR from c.1920, later promoted in the West, notably at the Bauhaus."
Guy Julier. "The Thames and Hudson Encyclopaedia of 20th Century Design and Designers". Thames and Hudson, 1993. "Given its anti-art standpoint, Russian Constructivism avoided the traditional use of art materials (e.g., oil and canvas) or pre-revolutionary iconography. Thus, art objects might be constructed out of ready-made materials (e.g., woods, metals, photographs or paper). The artists' work is often viewed as a system of reduction or abstraction, yet in all areas of cultural activity, from graphic design to film and theater, their aim was to construct a reality by bringing different elements together."

Armando Navarro (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Conio. “Le Constructivisme Russe”. L'age D'homme, 1987, p. 68. Gerard Conio states that Rodtchenko shared the "anti-art" conception of the Inkhouk in Moscow. In French : A la revue Vechtch/L'objet, publiée en trois langues (russe, allemand, francais) à Berlin par Lissitzky et Ehrenbourg, Alexis Gan répondra par son livre Le Constructivisme, dans lequel il exposait le point de vue productiviste et récusait l’idéologie du vechtchisme (théorie de l'art comme production d’objets, de modèles). Rodtchenko partageait cette conception “anti-art” qui régnait a l’Inkhouk de Moscou et renoncera à toute activité artistique pour entrer or dans la production », pour se mettre au service de la vie.Armando Navarro (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Turner. “The dictionary of art”. Grove's Dictionaries, 1996, p. 892 : About the term "Monochrome" : “Artists concerned with criticizing rather than with affirming the value of painting in art have, paradoxically, also employed the monochrome. In such cases the monochrome functions polemically as metonym, substituting one type of painting for all painting or art in general. Examples of this strategy include the white and black monochromes of the early 1950s by Robert Rauschenberg and the achromes of Piero Manzoni; both artists aimed to reinvigorate the nihilism associated with earlier anti-art movements such as Dada. In the work of Olivier Mosset (b 1944), Niele Toroni (b 1937) and Terry Atkinson (b 1939) the monochrome signifies a radical political negativity; for Claude Rutault (b 1941) it represented an ironical expression of the historical impasse of painting itself.” Armando Navarro (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of a link to another article does not imply some kind of equivalence. It only implies that further reading may be of interest. Therefore I don't think there is that much harm done by linking some articles in the "See also" section to "Anti-art." But to make it more clear, maybe a note could be put after the link, stating that there is no implied equivalence or even a necessarily strong connection. Or perhaps that such linkage is disputed. The point I am trying to make is that the way out of our dilemma lies in nuanced language, carefully placed. Anyone agree? Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Fire

The image of the painting Voice of Fire in this article isn't a picture of the original painting, but rather a Photoshop recreation. I'm not sure how it made its way into this article, but simply recreating a painting seems like blatant forgery to me. I've replaced the image with a low-resolution picture of the original artwork. —Nick (T/C) 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nothing

Should this article be added to the indicated category?

Malevich, Black Square, 1915

Malevich realized his first Black Square in 1915, not 1913. see here: MoMA and here: Hermitage Museum. Coldcreation (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need for a reactive critique of the movement

Surely there was some significant reaction in the critical community along the lines of, "This isn't merely bad art, but not in fact art at all." Don't get me wrong; I understand the argument of why this is a legitimate genre of painting, much as some guy sitting on a stage smoking a cigarette or spinning a top is recognized as performance art. Still, one thinks there must be a sizable negative critical reaction, if only amongst the establishment art critic community, that deconstructs this sort of deconstructionism, no? [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1000:5B1:9227:E4FF:FEF0:BBDE (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works (contribs) 00:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monochrome painting → Monochrome (visual arts) – Removing the arguably restrictive category of "painting" from the page title will naturally incorporate more mediums and movements, several of which are already discussed in the article (Minimalism is one such example). It will also follow terminology adapted by major cultural institutions including the Tate Modern and the Museum of Modern Art. I could provide further evidence, though I really do not see this as a particularly controversial move and did not want to make the decision myself so as to allow for community input. Ppt91 ^talk 23:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose, the long-term title descriptor 'painting' summarizes the page and topic well, as it has done since 2004. No need for a change here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine title the way it is. It describes an articulate and clear topic...Modernist (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose instead “Monochrome art”. Per the predominant terminology in the current references. Beats the proposed as CONCISE and NATURAL, and art includes painting, and this article should be encouraged to expand beyond painting, as does its references. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the terminology refers to 'art' it likely means 'paintings'. Other visual artforms will of course be one color (i.e. tying all white statues to this page, for example, would be stretching the title to an unwarranted degree). Leaving the topic to cover notable paintings seems more to the point of the page topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this page will always cover paintings.

When the source terminology uses “art” to cover “paintings”, so should Wikipedia.

Non-painting monochrome art fits on this article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page covers paintings as a stand-alone topic. This topic is notable on its own, which is why the page was written and presented as derived and focused on just paintings. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose any changes to this articles name. Make a new article if you so desire...Modernist (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support change to "Monochrome art". I am really surprised by how strong the opposition is. So we should have a separate article on the monochrome in three-dimensional abstraction and a separate one for painting? That sounds ridiculous. The whole idea of changing this is to reflect a variety of mediums that are already discussed in the article, not to add irrelevant stuff. The art historical category of the monochrome is more expansive than just painting and we should follow sources, not our preferences. Talking about the monochrome in Minimalism only through the lens of painting is obviously restrictive, as many minimalists argued vehemently against traditional authorship and deployed industrial methods of manufacturing. Current sources from this article support this; the book "Monochromes: From Malevich to the Present" which is listed as a source for this article "traces the development of single-color artwork--painting, sculpture, photography, video, and installations--up to the present" (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Monochromes/JdlPAAAAMAAJ?hl=en). Can those opposing provide scholarship to support their position? Monochrome art allows to examine all mediums without compromising the concept as one originating in the 20th-century Western tradition. Ppt91 ^talk 12:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer, please note that the above was written by the nominator. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding sculpture to this page would be redundant for white marble, black granite, etc. Sculptor's intent throughout the centuries did not intend to stretch the boundaries of visual art by using one-color rock but simple use of the available aesthetically pleasing materials. Videos and color photographs do not fit this page. No need for a change here, the topic of monochrome paintings has a notable history and page-focus as it stands. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I voiced support for a change proposed by another editor, which is different from my original one.

I also am a bit concerned you are conflating the concept of the monochrome with the idea of something being monochromatic and that you might have limited historiographical/theoretical awareness of the issues at hand. You do realize these are two distinct categories, right? A sculpture made out of marble and not painted over is monochromatic, but the notion of the monochrome, as understood within the context of Western modern and contemporary art, is a completely separate idea often used for conceptual purposes (there are literally works in this article discussing exactly that).

I also never once mentioned anything about notability, only changing the name to reflect the expanded scope. Can you provide specific literature to refute my earlier points, particularly in relation to Minimalism which is already included? What do you mean by color photographs? These are generalizations that would not hold up in any serious art historical discussion, even on undergraduate level. I am okay with community consensus if it is supported by evidence.

Though it's hard to respond to arguments that are made without any backing and where you conflate multiple ideas; I can't imagine going over to a medical topic discussion and arguing for a point based on my opinion. I don't understand why that is somehow acceptable for visual arts. Ppt91 ^talk 13:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your insults aside, please note that the entire page is about painting. You mentioned photographs, I was replying. Adding a boldfaced 'Support' indicates that you are an editor commenting on the discussion and not the nominator, which is why I added a note so the closer (many closers close a page within seconds) hopefully notices the connection. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These were not at all intended as insults and I am sorry for my tone. Honestly, I was going to let this entire discussion go after I saw the first two opposes, because I did not feel it was worth it, but the other editor's ideas seemed like a very good alternative.

The main point that I have been trying to make this entire time is that the article is not about just painting and some of the current content exceeds the boundaries of traditional painting as a medium and as an art historical category within the context of modernism and, more importantly, the post-war developments challenging individualism and authorship. This is further supported by the sources the article uses. You've replied multiple times saying very similar things phrased differently, so I wanted to just be direct for the sake of time. I still have not seen literature or evidence that would refute my point.

More broadly, I am frustrated with the poor quality of a lot of WP:WPVA modern and contemporary content and I don't think there are enough editors to handle it. 90% if not more of what I do here is to improve a lot of that content. So when I proposed what from an art historical standpoint seemed like a very non-controversial change and it was met with opposition not backed by actual evidence, my tone likely reflected that frustration although it was not intended to insult you.

Editors like User:Modernist made excellent and wide-ranging contributions to the topic, but they are semi-retired and the dearth of serious and competent individuals is a big problem for modern and contemporary visual arts topics on Wikipedia. Again, all I am trying to do is address these broader issues to the best of my ability (primarily by creating new content or restructuring extising pages) and I am certainly not looking antagonize anyone. Ppt91 ^talk 14:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if more art students, curators, art historians, collectors, gallery owners and the like were full editors on Wikipedia art projects. Surprises me also how limited the active art editors are in number. This is seen across many topics, both art topics and other general editing. This is not the place to discuss this though, but is a topic well worth discussing. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear Painting is painting; this article is about painting albeit...monochromatic painting; that is about painting. Separate articles for monochromatic sculpture, printing, photography, architecture, design et al...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Title-wise, absolutely, but content-wise it covers multiple artists whose work cannot be simply classified as such, which was the main reason for proposing the change.

To be more specific: Patricia Johanson created large-scale installations, John McCracken and Anne Truitt were known primarily for Minimalist three-dimensional work, Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns both question the validity of traditional painting as a medium in their work (which is why their work has been described as Neo-Dada, linked in the article), Ellsworth Kelly did numerous abstract monochrome sculptures in addition to paintings, Allan McCollum is known for his installations (including those made with large-scale monochrome objects), and Lucio Fontana literally cut through the canvases to create spatial concepts.

If it weren't for these significant inconsistencies and for the article's reliance on sources that deal with monochrome as a concept, I most likely wouldn't have suggested the change. That's all. I will WP:DROPTHESTICK. I appreciate everyone's input one way or another. Ppt91 ^talk 23:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.