Talk:Western painting/Archive 1

20 Century

Is it me, or is the page weighted just a little bit in favour of the 20th Century? Bob.appleyard 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

images/critical commentary

What critical commentary are these images providing, and how are they illustrating a technique or school? --Minderbinder 14:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The criterion from the WP:FREE policy is "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." These images are clearly illustrating the school of art discussed in the nearby text - how is this not the case? There is no requirement for detailed commentary on each image, which obviously would be impossible in an article like this. I think the captions throughout the article could do with being longer to reinforce the various points, but this article is just now undergoing massive expansion, and no doubt this will be got round to. I also don't know if Commons images have been looked for - perhaps some can be replaced by these, which would obviously be better. There are a lot of images, possibly a few too many, but this is a flagship article, covering a huge subject. The size of most is very small, which is also relevant. I'll revert to the previous arrangement, but am open to discussion. I think they might also be broken up into smaller gallery groups among the text personally. 15:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)full sig Johnbod 14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the images are quite representative of the eras they illustrate. I will look again when I have more time, but on the face of it I see no need to delete these images. JNW 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, each is representative of the era. But, for example, there's no need for four images to illustrate Neo-expressionism, and WP:FU says only one should be used. Many of these are also decorative and have very little. For example, Image:Frankenthaler Helen Mountains and Sea 1952.jpg (which needs to be scaled down anyway) is being used to illustrate Color field painting; however, there's no discussion of what Color field painting is, so its use here is purely decorative. ShadowHalo 20:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I asked for outside opinions on the nonfree image use at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --Minderbinder 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in disagreement. These images are quite properly illustrating this article. The text is currently being revised. There are images illustrating different tendencies in 20th century art that refer to separate movements and that also link to articles about those movements. Color field painting, has a lengthy text in a separate linked page. There are several tendencies within the general heading of neo-expressionism that are illustrated. For instance Philip Guston - who was an important influence on younger painters in the 1980s. Modernist 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Added images as illustrations and text to 20th Century but I prefer the gallery. It is succinct and the text eventually will discuss and reflect upon every image in the gallery in depth. The complexity of high end 20th century painting is long and varied as demonstrated in the article. There are important 20th century movements not covered here even as long as the gallery is now. I prefer the gallery to the use of illustrations, partially because they are distracting, partially because more ground is covered in the gallery. As User:Johnbod and others have suggested if there are redundancies in the gallery they can be trimmed. I think all the images are needed to illustrate the text, they each represent important movements. The four neo-expressionist images are four separate directions - Guston is the bridge between Social Realism, Abstract expressionism, Pop Art, and Neo-expressionism, Susan Rothenberg represents the classic move back to imagery in the 1970s, Eric Fischl introduces the psychological anxiety and drama of the 1980s with his edgy figurative paintings and Anselm Kiefer represents the culmination of Post-war German and European art from Joseph Beuys to Gerhard Richter that should be acknowledged. I will give careful thought to the guidelines but my interpretation of them is that these images as they are used in the gallery are perfectly within the boundaries of the guidelines. I will probably eliminate the illustrative images in favor of the gallery, after I think on it for a few more hours. Modernist 03:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I observe, there are a number of good editors here going back and forth on this issue with no small measure of intensity. My suggestion is that a serious contributor like Modernist be given some time, a few days of breathing room, to expand the content of the article in order to further validate the relevance of the images. Would that be acceptable to the various well-meaning parties? JNW 04:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's already happening. Bravo. JNW 04:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Modernist, the image description pages also need to include copyright details, where the image was obtained and a fair-use rationale for each use. See Image:Black font crop from Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg Soup Cans for a good example. I started to add these for Image:Kooning_woman_v.jpg, but couldn't identify the original source of the image, although MOMA has similar de Koonings to use instead, e.g Woman 1 at [1].--Ethicoaestheticist 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the de Kooning and updated the image page. ... still pondering the impact of cleaning up years worth of "fair use" images in light of recent wikipedia projects to do so. --sparkit^TALK 13:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Minderbinder --You ask above, "What critical commentary are these images providing, and how are they illustrating a technique or school?" Aren't we talking about visual art? Isn't a "picture worth a thousand words?" What better commentary is there than the image itself? Why submit an understanding of a work of visual art or a style or a movement or a technique to a verbal description of it? It is common in art history classes in schools to make extensive use of slide shows. The only thing better than images of the works are the originals. Wikipedia unfortunately doesn't have the technology yet to transport the originals to us. :) Bus stop 14:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Current interpretation of wikipedia policy says that an image speaking for itself isn't good enough. For a nonfree image to be justified it must be discussed in the text, not be a substitute for text. If you have questions about this, I'd encourage you to discuss at the policy page WP:NONFREE. --Minderbinder 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this "current interpretation"? Johnbod 21:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's extenssive discussion of it at WT:NONFREE. --Minderbinder 11:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? This page is so long it gets archived every few weeks. Johnbod 21:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Minderbinder- I do not interpret those guidelines the way you do. These images are illustrating the text, and they are specific to the material discussed in the text. These are paintings or rather images of paintings, in an article about these very paintings and what they represent, when they were painted and who painted them and they are here to illustrate the existance of 20th century painting. Modernist 22:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect I interpret the policy - on WP:NONFREE very differently from the interpretation by User:Minderbinder, - it says - "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page". (italics mine), the fair use rationale for the use of many of these images is that they are being used as thumbnails, and as educational descriptions, and as examples that otherwise cannot be substituted because of the unique character of very recent art objects and because they describe a specific style, a particular time and a place. Modernist 01:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, your policy interpretation isn't consistent with how it is currently being enforced. --Minderbinder 11:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Because "fair use" images are used in many visual arts articles (particularly 20th and 21st century stuff) I've invited the folks on the Non-free content project to discuss the issues with the folks on the Visual arts project. --sparkit^TALK 17:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

Western painting seems to be constantly harassed by User:Minderbinder. He has reverted this article already five or six times in the last few days, he has appointed himself as the sole authority here, the judge and the jury, while several Visual arts editors clearly need to illustrate articles with images. Please stop harassing this article. Modernist 13:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. There's an image policy issue here, and I'd like to see it resolved instead of just reverting images back in. --Minderbinder 14:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Several images are public domain/-no problem/, several other images have Fair use explanations which clearly fit the purposes here - ie. the Dali. I'm going through them, and eventually this issue will be fairly worked out. However if you constantly revert the images wholesale, it doesn't look at all like assume good faith. Thanks for your input. Modernist 14:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you don't like how it looks, but we all need to follow wikipedia policy. When you revert the images back in wholesale, it doesn't look like good faith either. Why can't you add the images back in as the issues are resolved instead of insisting on having the page in a state that violates policy? --Minderbinder 14:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to let other editors beside you and me make those choices, I hesitate at this point from doing anything further until there are other opinions as to each image. Modernist 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we all calm down. There is an issue with fair-use & I think we all need to work through it patiently. 15:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnbod (talk • contribs)

I agree. Things need to calm down. It's difficult to clean up the images when they keep appearing and disappearing. If the images stay for a while editors can clean them up. I don't think any new fair-use images should be included until the present ones have been cleaned up. Images should be removed one at a time, if for instance copyright information cannot be found for them, rather than wholesale. Would that be an acceptable compromise for those involved?--Ethicoaestheticist 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK by me, thanks Modernist 16:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethicoaestheticist, it seems like you don't understand the problem. The issue is that WP policy and resolutions from the foundation say that nonfree image use should be minimal. Policy is also very clear when it says use in galleries is generally considered to be decorative. Copyright information has nothing to do with it, the problem is use that doesn't follow WP:NONFREE and that is not minimal. --Minderbinder 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, can we have a specific reference for "Policy is also very clear when it says use in galleries is generally considered to be decorative". Please don't just refer to the book-length Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. Johnbod 16:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's at WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Perhaps the reference to WP:NONFREE has confused the issue.--Ethicoaestheticist 16:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Minderbinder If thats the real issue, then why did you just eliminate a Mondrian painting from the article about Piet Mondrian? Modernist 17:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what he says goes way beyond WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. I think WP:NONFREE is clearly the main issue here. Johnbod 17:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NONFREE: "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements are normally regarded as decorative." On the mondrian page, there was already an illustrating image, I took out a second one (and left a third). What was the second intended to illustrate that the first wasn't already showing? From NONFREE: "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." --Minderbinder 17:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok Thanks - that clarifies you were specifically talking about non-free images in galleries. There is a very common belief on WP that there are all sorts of policies against galleries in general, but no one has yet been able to show me specific policy saying this. Johnbod 21:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Minderbinder, thanks for the clarification (I know you've stated this before, so apologies for the slow uptake). You are definitely right about the need to justify significance. As they stand now the 'galleries' of non-free images are in small groups of four with gallery tags primarily used to link the images together for the sake of page layout (unlike the more expansive galleries of free images on the page). I think that if significance, in addition to the other fair-use criteria, is stated on the relevant image pages, they should now be acceptable.--Ethicoaestheticist 19:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems right to me, but I would be glad to hear from a specialist. Johnbod 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

See below. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Note the policy quoted above is clearly talking about the (now virtually extinct) galleries-as-articles. "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements are normally regarded as decorative." Gallery sections, properly captioned, in articles, are clearly a different thing to my mind, and this needs to be reflected in the polict - we should adress this when these articles are sorted out. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

More on images

It is almost never acceptable to use non-free images in galleries because of WP:NFCC#8 (which is a policy, not just a guideline). Each non-free image which is truly useful in the article needs to be mentioned in the text (not just the image's caption) along with some allegation of how the image is important to the topic of Western pointing, and that statement (e.g. "Dali's Crucifiction helped usher in the surrealist movement") needs to be sourced so that it's not original research. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that " Each non-free image which is truly useful in the article needs to be mentioned in the text (not just the image's caption)" is new to me. I understand that just giving a title and artist name in a caption does not amount to discussion, but see no reason why a longer caption commenting on the work should not do so. Please clarify what you are saying, and produce policy references if you are indeed saying this. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As you probably realize these images are important to these articles especially 20th century visual art articles. I will very carefully go over the text and reference and specify and coordinate the text to those images over the next few days. Modernist (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, although it's gonna take me a few days. Modernist (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Logic and common sense tells us that these images illustrate style, tendency etc. For instance the Robert Mangold painting is used as an example of a style - Minimal art whose characteristics are discussed and placed in historical context. Is it that particular Mangold that is specifically discussed no - as in WP:UCS we are using examples of style. Franz Kline and Willem de Kooning demonstrate particular tendencies in Abstract Expressionism, etc. I will add text and reference only where logic and possibility make it viable. Modernist (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've covered nearly every image, and I removed the tag. Modernist (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of experienced and conscientious arts editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts, willing to attend to these issues. It would be helpful, before images are deleted, to raise problems first of all on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, so the particular case(s) can gain attention and evaluation. The Foundation has specifically mentioned contemporary art as a genre where non-free images will often have to be retained. Regarding WP:NFCC#8:

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.

Visual art is the parmount place where this applies. The understanding is in the seeing, and no amount of words can substitute for that. Template:Non-free 2D art states that the use of non-free images for critical commentary on

• the work in question,
• the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
• the school to which the artist belongs

are all legitimate. The description of changing modes and ideas in art is critical commentary, whose meaning can only be properly comprehended by literally seeing it. Tyrenius (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Images in galleries

Greetings. I'm an admin frequently involved in WP:IFD and related discussions, and I have a pretty solid understanding of our non-free content policy. There is no specific policy that spells out that non-free images may not be used in galleries, or that images captions are definitively inadequate for satisfying WP:NFCC#8. But this is how NFCC#8 is generally interpreted by the community. In my experience, when a non-free image is only used in a gallery or is only mentioned in the caption of the article, that image almost never survives the IFD process. I hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really - if WP:NFCC#8 is the only policy basis for this, that is stretching it way beyond anything it says. Can you refer to examples, especially with reference to long captions? In my limited experience of these matters, the "community" (or rather lets face it, handful of specialists) that are usually involved at IFD have little or no overlap with Visual arts editors, and (certainly on Commons) are notably at sea when dealing with VA issues. In any case I think few of these images are only used in these survey articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to find out, nominate one such image for deletion. Say that it's a "procedural nomination" to see how policy is interpreted, and say you think it should be kept. I think you'll find that it gets deleted. (I'll stay out of it, of course.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not aware that any of these images are only used here, or only in galleries, so I would'nt know where to find a suitable example. The whole deletion issue is rather a red-herring here, for that reason. If WP:NFCC#8 is your only basis for objection to discussions being in captions, it seems a mistaken interpretation to me. Again, can you point to any previous discussions of this issue? Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominating an image for deletion on the above grounds is not acceptable per WP:POINT. My remarks above per WP:NFCC#8 have not been addressed. I will repeat the content of that policy:

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.

If part of the article talks about, for example, surrealism, the display of key images from that school would undoubtedly significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and the omission of them would undoubtedly be detrimental to that understanding. The use of key images is therefore justified. They do not have to be specifically mentioned by name. That is an amateurish and clumsy insistence, which is likely to produce a pedantic and stilted result in the writing. As I have also pointed out, Template:Non-free 2D art states that the use of non-free images for critical commentary on

• the work in question,
• the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
• the school to which the artist belongs

are all legitimate. Please note "artistic genre" and "the school to which the artist belongs" are valid criteria for inclusion. The reason, presumably, that art images have dedicated templates is to take into account that they have special conditions because of their intrinsic nature. It seems, from what has been said, that standard contributors to WP:IFD are not sufficiently conversant with the particular requirments of visual art articles. This is understandable, as it is a specialised subject, and the reason that a project has been formed so that expertise can be directed for the benefit of the encyclopedia. The bottom line is what will benefit the encyclopedia. Non-free images are being used, not out of choice, but necessity. If such use is prevented (and policy does not prevent it - quite the opposite) the outcome will be severely detrimental to wikipedia's ability to create proper articles on art. Tyrenius (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Although they should be named in the captions to the images in the normal way, and personally I like to add some commentary where possible. But you are correct. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've covered nearly every image, and I removed the tag. Modernist (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nature Symbolized.jpg

The image Image:Nature Symbolized.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Violcand.jpg
• Image:Pedestal Table in the Studio.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this problem out, it is solved with a Fair Use Rationale...Modernist (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this problem out, it is also solved with a Fair Use Rationale...Modernist (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported Statements

Is it just me, or does this article largely consist of unsupported assertions of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs) 02:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 39 references, so obviously a lot of the material is supported. If there are any specific points you feel are not right, I suggest you raise them on this page. Ty 03:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please re-examine the article - whole sections lack any references, for example the middle ages.Research Method (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, for the heads up..I will add references if possible..to that section...Modernist (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are none of the talk page contributions supported by references? How can anyone know how much value an anonymous contributor's point of view has. Unless you want to declare your qualifications please reference your arguments. Otherwise it's like a playground argument - Yankee art is better than Froggy.Research Method (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

the following paragraph needs sources.

At the beginning of the 21st century Contemporary painting and Contemporary art in general continues in several contiguous modes, characterized by the idea of pluralism. The "crisis" in painting and current art and current art criticism today is brought about by pluralism. There is no consensus, nor need there be, as to a representative style of the age. There is an anything goes attitude that prevails; an "everything going on", and consequently "nothing going on" syndrome; this creates an aesthetic traffic jam with no firm and clear direction and with every lane on the artistic superhighway filled to capacity. Consequently magnificent and important works of art continue to be made albeit in a wide variety of styles and aesthetic temperaments, the marketplace being left to judge merit. << needs wayyyy more sources. 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.239.203 (talk)

Hudson River School

Is Of Minor Importance, and can be reached through romanticism. It has been given undue prominence. Research Method (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I disagree. The historical view is changing. There is a clear distinction between European Romanticism - Turner and Constable in England, Gericault and Delacroix in France, Friedrich in Germany, Goya in Spain, with the Hudson River painters like Cole, Church and Bierstadt in America whose narrative works are being appreciated now in the 21st century again after studies by Barbara Novack [2] writing in Artforum here:[3] a few years ago in 2002, and other historians: [4]. Modernist (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not give 3 references for seperate elements of one reference. Both your references support the arguement that the Hudson River School is of little interest to anyone outside the usa, and that it lacks popularity even there. Novack says:

" In Europe there is only one major collection of American nineteenth-century painting: that assembled by Hans Heinrich and Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza. Few European collections contain any nineteenth-century American art at all. In 2000, the Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza in Madrid launched the first-ever large-scale American landscape show in Europe, "Exploring Eden," to which the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, loaned Cole's 1842 "Voyage of Life" series. (An earlier version exists at the Munson-Williams-Proctor Arts Institute in Utica, New York, so its overseas journey was not as curatorially heart-stopping as that of "The Course of Empire.")" " "European scholars at large have been remarkably reluctant to admit American artists of this period into the pantheon of great landscape painters. In the wake of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, as Western nations join with the United States to confront global terrorism, "American Sublime" offers an excellent opportunity for the European nations to assimilate American art into the Western tradition."States of grace: Barbara Novak on "American Sublime" - The Vault Preview - Thomas Cole exhibit

Judith Hansen O'Toole says

"Founded by Thomas Cole (1801 - 1848), who, in 1818 at age seventeen, emigrated from England to a fresh, new America, the movement declined during the last decades of the nineteenth century when artists and their patrons became enamored of different aesthetic ideas and styles imported from Europe. "

"The purpose of American Scenery: Different Views in Hudson River School Painting is to revive the public's ability to appreciate nineteenth-century American landscape painting and to provide insight to the iconographical base that gives it greater meaning in order to more fully comprehend its achievement.Different Views in Hudson River School Painting by Judith Hansen O'Toole

I am not saying it has no significance in the USA, just that it is of minor importance to Western Painting.. Research Method (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

CommentI disagree again - what they are saying is there needs a reevaluation and another understanding of the impact of HRS painting on the art of the 20th century. They are focusing on the movement; and its lack of historical support in European collections....and it should stay as it is in this article.Modernist (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why does the Hudson River School matter more than he Boston School or the White Mountain School? And why should it be in Europe? Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese artists went to Paris too, but they are not included in this article.

• commentThis is called Western painting. There is this:Eastern art history and it would be great to see and article on Eastern painting...including China, Japan, Vietnam etc. Modernist (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• commentWhy not write it, or develop Visual arts of the United States, or the America's section in this article.

Research Method (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually this article shouldn't be much longer than it is...it is already very large. a link to that one is ok though..Modernist (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No! It is not suitable to be compared with Romanticism. Please read the references I have cited. This is an EDUCATIONAL project, nor a national one. Research Method (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC) merged two threads Research Method (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

American Painting

There is a seperate section for American painting, but some has been included in Europe. Should it be seperated? Research Method (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• The section should not be divided for several reasons, It shouldn't subdivide into nationalism. See this: Visual arts of the United States. With all due respect what is the Paris School? The School of Paris? I think of as Post-War (WWII) French painting...or Post-World War I French painting...certainly 20th century...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Developments in modern art in Europe came to America from exhibitions in New York City such as the Armory Show in 1913. Previously American Artists had based the majority of their work on European Arts. "Visual arts of the United States

Should the section "painting in the Americas" be deleted then? I am not sure why it is included in Western Painting, and it has no text.Research Method (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• comment - It is about indigenous early painting among various ethnic cultures in the Western hemisphere and it does need additional text, add some...Modernist (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• comment It is the correct place to discuss and link to The Hudson River School.Research Method (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• No, it shouldn't be there also, it's 19th century European type painting...as you know. It covers the territory where it is. Modernist (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• comment According to the article Visual arts of the United States, "America's first well-known school of painting—the Hudson River School—appeared in 1820. As with music and literature, this development was delayed until artists perceived that the New World offered subjects unique to itself; in this case the westward expansion of settlement brought the transcendent beauty of frontier landscapes to painters' attention."

That sounds like "indigenous early painting " rather than Western Painting to me.Research Method (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• The section is called painting in the Americas and it is appropriate..Although another worldwide article can probably also be created about early painting in the East as well...I'll be back later, gotta go now..Modernist (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Appropriate for the The Hudson River School?Research Method (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Legibility

Who's saying what? Unsigned posts, bullet points when colons should be used to indent talk. How can anyone else follow this properly? See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout and Wikipedia:TP#Formatting. Ty 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues

If there are still issues to be resolved and it would help to have the participation of other editors, I suggest starting a completely new section to summarises the points to address. Ty 10:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the Hudson bay School part of Western Painting? I argue that I've never heard of it.Research Method (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread here [5] in hopes of achieving a consensus among editors concerning the placement of the Hudson River School in this article. I consider it's placement in the 19th century section of this article to be both obvious and correct..Modernist (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Paris School

"Cultural cross-pollination in the 19th century brought to us the “Paris School” of painting, with its commitment to realistic natural figures and strong traditional skills. This French academic style schooled many Americans and Europeans in fine art painting. Artists spilled out of Europe and Paris toward New York, across the sea and then across the landscapes they were so fond of capturing. These painters pursued their own artistic visions and shared them with students in Boston and New York, giving birth to the Hudson River School, the Boston School and New Hampshire’s White Mountain School.[a look at the luminous, from Paris to Portsmouth by Rick Agran

Research Method (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• CommentUh yes the Americans went to Paris as did Mexicans, Germans, Russians and they created paintings - thats the point..not who influenced who..Modernist (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The School of Paris <-- article can be accessed by a click..Modernist (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hudson River School 2

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

Apparently this editor Research Method (talk · contribs) is of the opinion that the Hudson River School should be removed from this article or at best does not belong where it is placed in the 19th century section. I would appreciate other editors opinions concerning the Hudson River School's placement in the article..In my opinion it is currently correctly placed..Modernist (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems appropriate for the HRS to be listed under the 19th century heading. It does not appear that it has been moved from there, but rather, that it now enjoys an additional mention under 'Painting in the Americas'. As such, this might underscore a potentially awkward construction: most of the article is framed chronologically, with the 'Americas' section existing rather independently near the end. This could invite just such duplicate mentions. I don't know if, or even whether, this section ought to be deconstructed and folded into the larger mass of the article. Food for Halloween thought. JNW (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Halloween, I hope that guy's user page doesn't look like that every day.... He states his agenda on his user page thus: "Seeking to remove united states art from western painting." Lithoderm (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I had not seen that--an agenda unlikely to find scholarly support. JNW (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with JNW; we should also cover Russian 19th century painting, another exotic, but Western, school that is now receiving attention in Europe, as it hardly did at the time. It has many similarities with American painting of the same period - indeed it is to be honest a little bit more interesting, if only because so varied, based on what I've seen. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That user page is as strange as is his arguments..Modernist (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The user states at talk:Western painting that he has never heard of the HRS and does not think it is a part of western painting; this is not a terribly strong argument, and suggests NO research method. Ewulp (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all the above highly relevant, accurate and intelligent observations. Ty 11:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

End of moved text

This distorts my argument which was that the Hudson Bay School was a minor offshoot of Romanticism, best placed in the United States Section of this article.Research Method (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a United States section for 19th century art, only for "Painting in the Americas Before Colonization". That section would be better moved to its own article, as it is not part of the Western painting tradition. Ty 12:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Importance of Russian Painting

c19 Russian Painting is far more important to western art that American Painting. It gave rise to Malevich's Black Square of 1913. If you disagree with this statement, please explain why your unsupported view has more value than mine. Research Method (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How does that reference add anything to your argument? Lithoderm (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It links to a primary source. the major Russian picture gallery, where most important c19 Russian Art is. Didn't going there change your view of Russian c19 art? I don't believe there is an equivalent institution in the usa.

Um, it's called the National Gallery of Art. And of course the Russian gallery is going to say that Russian art is far more important. Lithoderm (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please indent your posts. The National Gallery of Art has one of the finest art collections in the world. The strongest collection is the Italian Renaissance collection, the other european collections inculde examples of the work of many of the great masters of western painting, inculding Gruenwanld, Cranach the Elder, Van der Wyden, Durer, Hals ,Rembrandt, Vermeer, Goya, Ingres, and Delacroix.

The Tretyakov contains more than 130 000 works of Russian painting, sculpture and graphics. If you followed the link, you would see that:)Research Method (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Tretyakov was founded in 1856. I believe the analagous ammerican institution is the Whitney Museum of American Art founded in 1931.Research Method (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about the Smithsonian American Art Museum? What I'm saying is that The National Museum of Russian Fine Art is not exactly a neutral source when it comes to the relative importance of American and Russian art. And what is this, the cold war? I don't think it can really be said which one is more important. Certainly the number of paintings is not a major factor. Lithoderm (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you fail to understand my point, which is that the Tretyakov was established in 1856 as a collection of purely Russian Art, whereas the Smithsonian American Art Museum's collection "began modestly in 1829 when a Washingtonian named John Varden set out to form a permanent museum for the nation with his collection of European art". It was only in 1937 that was given "a new mission based on New Deal idealism: to promote the work of living artists and to build a national audience". this was a function the Tretyakov had played for 80 years.Research Method (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs) 05:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a neutral source, it is a primary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The subject heading "19th century etc"

The Hudson River School is part of the Romantic Movement. This is stated in the current text -"In the United States the Romantic tradition of landscape painting was known as the Hudson River School". The fact that it doesn't end with "ism" is a hint that it doesn't belong there. Rather than stating that the Hudson River School IS important because you say so, provide some citations to back up your points of view. Currently the only reference cited for hudson river school leads to an article that says it is not important in western art, containing the text

"In the wake of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, as Western nations join with the United States to confront global terrorism, "American Sublime" offers an excellent opportunity for the European nations to assimilate American art into the Western tradition."

Which hardly butresses the case for its inclusion as a significant element of Western Art". I rather think this supports my argument. I understood that wikipedia was opposed to misleading citations, and ad hominem arguements, and I am sad to see my rational arguments criticised on the basis of my artistic expression on my user page. I would be interested to know what is strange about my argument.Research Method (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what is strange about my referenced argument under Hudson River School above, and why my opponents are so shy of referencing their points of view.Research Method (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind taking it out of the header, but it should be in the text. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod I have not removed it from the text, in fact I have added it to the text . If you read my contributions to this discussion page, you will see that my complaints have been about Modernist's insistence on putting it in the header. I have always accepted that it is part of Romanticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs)

Agree with Johnbod. It's hardly in the same league as Impressionism. Headings should be succinct. A major omission is the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Ty 02:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with modifying the heading.....end of it..Modernist (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!Research Method (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I added Symbolism to the heading. I added it, but Modernist has removed it. Is there a consensus on this?Research Method (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Any danger of using colons to indent your posts? Ty 02:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We only have symbolism mentioned in two headings so far:

4.3 Expressionism, Symbolism, American Modernism, Bauhaus

4.4 Dada and Surrealism

4.5 German Expressionism, Social realism, regionalism, American Scene painting, Symbolism

I'm sure one more wouldn't harm. OK, end of sarcasm. I think symbolism is mentioned one time too many already. Ty 02:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs as a header it is mentioned in the article and Russian Symbolism is mentioned also - I included a leading Russian Symbolist as well...maybe I ought to put Hudson River School back...and the subhead too....Modernist (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to remove expressionism too? Symbolism is one of the most important international movements in c19 art= There were several, rather dissimilar, groups of Symbolist painters and visual artists, among whom Gustave Moreau, Gustav Klimt, Odilon Redon, Pierre Puvis de Chavannes, Henri Fantin-Latour, Edvard Munch, Félicien Rops, and Jan Toorop were numbered. Symbolism in painting had an even larger geographical reach than Symbolism in poetry, reaching Mikhail Vrubel, Nicholas Roerich, Victor Borisov-Musatov, Martiros Saryan, Mikhail Nesterov, Leon Bakst in Russia, as well as Frida Kahlo in Mexico, Elihu Vedder, Remedios Varo, Morris Graves, David Chetlahe Paladin, and Elle Nicolai in the United States. Auguste Rodin is sometimes considered a Symbolist in sculpture.Research Method (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we have Symbolism in one heading maybe, wherever it is most significant? Ty 02:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to do that, as it is important in at the end of the 19th and in the beginning of the 20th centuries, and the article is currently divided chronologialy:)Research Method (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

- this is in the article.....>

In the late 19th century there also were several, rather dissimilar, groups of Symbolist painters whose works resonated with younger artists of the 20th century, especially with the Fauvists and the Surrealists. Among them were Gustave Moreau, Odilon Redon, Pierre Puvis de Chavannes, Henri Fantin-Latour, Arnold Böcklin, Edvard Munch, Félicien Rops, and Jan Toorop, and Gustave Klimt amongst others including the Russian Symbolists like Mikhail Vrubel.... Modernist (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know which of those artists worked mainly in the c19, which in th c20, and which in both? If not, read the articles:)Research Method (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say put it in the heading of the section where it started. Ty 11:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Have done so.Research Method (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

...and remove it from the heading of the later section where it contintues. Ty 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Need to Remove Original Research

This article contains lot of text which takes a partisan view, and presents controversial theories as accepted fact, without references and that needs to be removed. For example "The spell of Impressionism was felt throughout the world, and nowhere more profoundly than in the United States, where it became integral to the painting of American Impressionists such as Childe Hassam, John Twachtman, and Theodore Robinson. It also exerted influence on painters who were not primarily Impressionistic in theory, like the portrait and landscape painter John Singer Sargent." I have tried to do this, but my edits have been reversed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You changed "Important painters of that school" (HRS), to "important painters within that school". There is obviously a big difference, as the second would imply that the HRS painters were only important within their movement. The Hudson river school painters were important within their school, sure, but also within American culture and society, and the wider arch of transcendentalism (see "Kindred Spirits") and romanticism. From the Met TOAH:
In the representation of American landscape, really in its infancy in the early nineteenth century, the application of the Sublime was virtually unprecedented, and moreover accorded with a growing appreciation of the wildness of native scenery that had not been seriously addressed by Cole's predecessors.
"Sir Ernst H. Gombridge" (or is it really "Ernst Gombrich"- it would help to verify your sources if you could spell) may omit them, but his work (the story of art) is apparently an introduction to art history for adolescents (see the article above), and he only lived in Austria and the UK... (a bias of exposure, perhaps) Lithoderm (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC

He is a noted art historian, and it is an introduction to western art history that does not include the painters you claim are important . Austria and the UK both have western artistic traditions dating back millenia. How many countries must an art historian live in to be taken seriously?.Research Method (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

'Almost as well known as the Mona Lisa, Sir Ernst Gombrich's The Story of Art unites learning and pleasure.' (Pierre Rosenberg, Président-Directeur, Musée du Louvre, Paris)Research Method (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You say "The Hudson river school painters were important within their school, sure, but also within American culture and society,". That is not the same as saying "important in western painting". "The spell of Impressionism was felt throughout the world, and nowhere more profoundly than in the United States" means what exactly?Research Method (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Research Method (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed "important" altogether per WP:PEACOCK. Ty 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The "spell of etc" is poetic, but probably excessively so for wikipedia, and surely inaccurate, as it was felt just as, if not far more, profoundly in France. Ty 00:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Point taken - I simplified the statement...Modernist (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The "spell of etc" is just an example. The article is currently full of peacock and poetic terms. I would remove them, but I think it is necesscary to build a consensus to avoid edit wars.Research Method (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Try to stay neutral..Modernist (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I find the article in its current state a disgrace that violates Wikipedia standards and provides an incomplete and deliberately distorted picture of Western Painting.Research Method (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT...and you have already made that clear, however there is a consensus that disagrees with your assessment..Improvements can be made, and no one here has refused to cooperate in improving articles, although we disagree about several issues..Modernist (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT an incomplete and deliberately distorted picture of Western Painting!Peas & Luv (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity of language

To be clear - the Hudson River School is important to Western painting. Frankly the Hudson River School painters like others whose works are being appreciated after the fact - are important to our understanding of 19th century western painting and philosophy. Those artists like Thomas Cole and his colleagues reflected a profound and spiritual reverence for nature and the sublime as did the Romantic painters earlier in the 19th century. They had a vast American landscape to work with; and several painters traveled throughout the western hemisphere and also throughout Europe painting various landscape motifs. Like Caspar David Friedrich whose great contributions to Western painting was long in eclipse until his work was re-appreciated after the start of the 20th century - so now does the Hudson River School resonate profoundly as important 19th century work. To both western painting and also to American society as you suggest. Clearly works by John Constable which resonate in western painting and English society - and have much in common with other 19th century landscape painting in both Europe and in America. As the writing of Barbara Novick and others assert. In particular longtime MoMA curator Kynaston McShine with his important exhibition at MoMA and his book of the same name:The Natural Paradise: Painting in America 1800-1950 put the Hudson River School back into the public discourse in 1976. Modernist (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please support your argument with some non-american sources that document the importance of c19 American Painting, and specifically the painters cited in the article in Western Painting. I think we all accept that Caspar David Fredrich is worth mentioning. Research Method (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, - non-American sources? Sources are sources..Famous curators at MoMA are sources..Barbara Novick is a well known historian married to Brian O'Doherty another important historian. There is no discrimination against Americans here...Modernist (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement per WP:V for sources from different nationalites, provided the sources used meet WP:RS. If other sources contradict this, then they can be represented also. The Tate's exhibition is a useful source.[6] And, gosh, there are "prominent artists" associated with the Hudson River School.[7] Ty 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"In the 1850s and 1860s the Hudson River school flourished, and its most important figures, Church, Cropsey, Kensett, Sanford Gifford, Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Moran and Worthington Whittredge, many of whom maintained painting rooms in the Tenth Street Studio Building in New York, created their finest works".Oxford Art Online (subscription). Ty 01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't say that they are important outside the school. The tate reference states that the work "has been scarcely seen outside the United States" since the c19. It may well have been rediscovered since 2002, but please provide sources, and can we include the fact that it was forgotten for so long in the article?Research Method (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It just says "its most important figures" without clarifying further either way, so that is what we should do in order to follow the source accurately. You are taking a completely Euro-centric viewpoint on the school. We should take a universal viewpoint. It wasn't "rediscovered since 2002". It was "rediscovered" in 2002 by the major Tate show. Ty 01:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This article really just mentions briefly the HRS as it is an overview..the main article here:Hudson River School is the basic article; the place in which to discuss in depth the history of the movement and it's popularity, eclipse and resurrection in the public eye...Modernist (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a source that supports your claim that the Tate show achieved its aims. The USA is one country among many that has produced Western Painting. This article currently gives it a prominence in this field that it is not accorded internationally.Research Method (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You know that's interesting you say - The USA is one country among many that has produced Western Painting at least that is settled..The editors here welcome input that is referenced unbiased and adds quality to the article..You made a big case for Russian Symbolism - and we added it..if there are important areas to add then achieve some sort of consensus through discussion..Modernist (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

German Expressionism etc. heading

German Expressionism , Social realism, regionalism, American Scene painting, Symbolism

Is American Scene Painting, also known as Regionalism, as important as this heading implies?.Research Method (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Although ironically the Social realism article in Wikipedia mostly discusses Soviet art...Modernist (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You think it's worth mentioning twice?Research Method (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel that "In the USA during the period between World War I and World War II painters tended to go to Europe for recognition." is a very strange way to start this article. Why begin this section by describing the situation of a relativey small group of painters, who failed to find significant recognition in Europe.Research Method (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are partially correct. Some artists went to Europe to be sure, Gerald Murphy, Marsden Hartley, Morgan Russell and others to try to achieve recognition in the European dominated art market. However many returned to the United States like Stuart Davis (painter) and Thomas Hart Benton (painter) and formulated with other indigenous Americans like Shahn, Curry, the Soyer brothers, Wood those socially relevant styles..For many of them recognition was irrelevant and secondary to the basic message of their art. The Great Depression, social injustice and the sense of community were the main motivating and important factor for many of those artists...Modernist (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but why this emphasis on America at a point when it wasn't very important artistically, and when this is covered in a seperate article.Research Method (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

With all respect that is your opinion, others have a different opinion....I guess that makes a horse race...Modernist (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My recollection is that American publications that purported to offer overviews of Western and 20th century art, college textbooks like those by H.W. Janson, included the 'American Scene' painters, or Regionalists, in their surveys, the rationale probably being that they represented about the only acceptable venue for traditional figuration at the time. JNW (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the following section be heavily edited-

"In the USA during the period between World War I and World War II painters tended to go to Europe for recognition. Modernist artists like Marsden Hartley, Patrick Henry Bruce, Gerald Murphy and Stuart Davis, created reputations abroad. While Patrick Henry Bruce, created cubist related paintings in Europe, both Stuart Davis and Gerald Murphy made paintings that were early inspirations for American pop art and Marsden Hartley experimented with expressionism. During the 1920s photographer Alfred Stieglitz exhibited Georgia O'Keeffe, Arthur Dove, Alfred Henry Maurer, Charles Demuth, John Marin and other artists including European Masters Henri Matisse, Auguste Rodin, Henri Rousseau, Paul Cézanne, and Pablo Picasso, at his New York City gallery the 291. In Europe masters like Henri Matisse and Pierre Bonnard continued developing their narrative styles independent of any movement. "

It describes the reception of Western art in the USA including Rodin, not known as a painter. It has obviously been copied from somewhere else. Research Method (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you offer evidence that a passage has been copied to support the accusation? JNW (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Google searches of key phrases don't bring up anything apart from copies of this wiki article. I suggest, Research Method, that you research before making sweeping statements. Ty 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly biased against American art and perhaps you should refrain from editing anything that has to do with American art..per WP:IDON'TLIKEIT...Hatred, bias and discrimation as you manifest against American art should not be permitted here...or anywhere else.Modernist (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's duplicated in part at 291 gallery, where Rodin would be appropriate..Research Method (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste it happens a lot....get used to it...Modernist (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The history will show which way round the cut and paste was. The edit summary should indicate if this has been done and from where, in order to preserve the integrity of GFDL (unless the same editor who created the initial text then copies it elsewhere also). Ty 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Modernist - 1 Arguments without arguments 1.1 Just a vote 2.1 I like it 6.5 Arguments to the person.Research Method (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can editors here stop making personal accusations and concentrate on material to improve the article. If you want to slag each other off, use email. Ty 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't address arguments rather you just attack me....Modernist (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing text and references

Achieve consensus first before removing large blocks of text...Modernist (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please give examples.Research Method (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, it doesn't mention you. Ty 02:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mention anyone. Is a consensus required before changing "The 1940s in New York City heralded the triumph of American abstract expressionism", to "In the 1940's abstract expressionism developed in NYC." and similar edits, or should I just do them?Research Method (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What similar edits? And the triumph of American Abstract Expressionism should not be removed..It accurately describes what happened in the art world..Modernist (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Triumph over Nazi Germany?Research Method (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah it refers to New York as the center of the art world...as it became after the war..Modernist (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that most of the material on Abstract Expressionism is superflous, as it should be in its own article. It was an important movement, but does not need to be described twice at such length. Any Opinions?Research Method (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually for various important reasons it all needs to be here..and it has it's own article..also...Modernist (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please state your reasons.Research Method (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest rephrasing "In the United States the Romantic tradition of landscape painting was known as the Hudson River School: exponents include Thomas Cole, Frederick Church, Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Moran, and John Frederick Kensett. Luminism was a movement in American landscape painting related to the Hudson River School. " as The Hudson River School in the United States followed the Romantic tradition of landscape painting: exponents include: Thomas Cole, Frederick Church, Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Moran, and John Frederick Kensett. American Luminism was a movement in American landscape painting related to the Hudson River School."

Since there were other practitioner's of Romantic Landscape painting in the USA.Research Method (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you make it clearer what is suggested to be rephrased to what? You have three double apostrophes. I think you need four. Ty 03:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I prefer the former...Modernist (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) Wikipedia policy applies to editing articles. See WP:BURDEN:

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page.

Per the above and WP:PEACOCK I can't see any justification for not changing "The 1940s in New York City heralded the triumph of American abstract expressionism", to "In the 1940's abstract expressionism developed in NYC."

Additionally the article at the moment is unbalanced. The Renaissance gets a fraction of the space of Abstract Expressionism, for example.

Ty 02:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As you know the onus is to include all Fair use into text, where that issue doesn't apply to the Renaissance public domain..I can try to reference Triumph if you need me to..the section that really needs help is the Baroque..Modernist (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That can't be a dominating editorial principle. It should be the other way round, i.e. write the proper text first. This may well result in an imbalance due to wikipedia's restrictive fair use policy. In that case, a solution is to decrease the number of non-fair use images in a general article such as this. It's a limitation of the system. I have suggested tables as less vulnerable. Ty 03:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tables are very good albeit awkward. However the imbalance indicates that the Renaissance, the Baroque, the Middle Ages and other sections sections need building up by good editors..Modernist (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Abstract Expressionism (and certain other schools) are currently covered at such length that this article would stretch to 1000's of pages if all movements of similar importance from the 2500 years and 40odd countries it covers were covered in similar depth. What is needed is a more concise summary to explain its position and role in the broad picture of western art and support the wikilink. I don't understand why detailed information needs to be duplicated here, under History of Painting, under Visual arts of the United States, and under Abstract Expressionism. I am not arguing that it should be removed, just shrunk. In addition the use of American to refer to the USA in a section that includes Mexican artists is confusing to this EuropeanResearch Method (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is imbalanced with too much space given to recent movements. They can be explored in depth in their own articles. Ty 13:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Balance

• More than half this article deals with the 20th century. That is much too much.
• The pre-Columbian and continuing indigenous art of the Americas has no place in this article whatsoever. I really can't imagine why it's there.
• Western painting ought to include the western-style art of Australia, New Zealand etc.
• The emphasis on the art of the US is really overboard- a list of 22 American Abstract Expressionists is taking it too far.
• Why is "Hard Edged" mentioned in three different sub-headings? Why are there so many examples of minimalist hard-edged abstraction shown, when really, one good one says it all? Amandajm (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

American Art

• The pre-Columbian and continuing indigenous art of the Americas - I think it's still there from when this article was duplicated from "history of Painting" article.Research Method (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support removal of 2, or all references to Hard Edged from sub-headings.Research Method (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I added the Pre-Colombian section and I worked on it with PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs) long after both of those articles (Western painting and History of painting) were formulated. It seemed obvious that those cultures were important and were missing. I included them in both articles. As far as Australian art goes and Western-style art in Australia and in New Zealand, I confess that outside of a few painters that I knew in the late 1960s from Australia; and a few exhibitions that I've seen on Aboriginal contemporary painting, I know very little about the subject. There is a place for it in History of painting, but there currently are only links and very little information. Modernist (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you add it to both articles? As Amandajm says, it has no place in Western Painting. Do you have a source to support the idea that it does?Research Method (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The culture is connected to the Western Hemisphere, Mexico, Central America, South America, Canada and the United States..where else would I put it? Frankly I felt this is where it should be..There has been tremendous influence on American art from Hopi, Navaho and other indigenous cultures. Not to say the tremendous influence on Kahlo, Rivera, Pollock, Siqueros, Orozco, Torrez-Garcia, and othersModernist (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Western art (another article) begins:" Western art is the art of European Countries, and those parts of the world that have come to follow predominantly European cultural traditions such as the Americas." & this article begins "The history of Western painting represents a continuous, though disrupted, tradition from antiquity". I think only post-colonization art should be covered here, though no doubt there are other articles whhere this material would be useful - we seem to be very short of Pre-Colombian/Native American overview articles, as I recall. Perhaps it could be used for a new article. Pre-Columbian art is hardly balanced, & peters out rapidly. Native American art - well! Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I put the section together because it did not exist anywhere elsa and both Pericles and I felt we should create the matrix which is what we have here...Perhaps it should simply be on its own; I am open to suggestions.Modernist (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was a little unsure about Pre-Columbian art restricting itself to South & Meso-America. Aren't early Northern peoples pre-Columbian too? If they are, in normal academic uses, then I'd merge it all there. Otherwise it could to split - half to P-C, half to kill the redlink - or kept as is for an all-Americas survey. I find the Pre-Co bunch love to keep all the different cultures in their own little coops. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I see lots of inter - influences flowing from the indigenous northwest to the Indian Space Painters of the 1940s and 1950s that haven't even been mentioned yet because there are almost no representatives of the movement except Will Barnet in Wikipedia. The weaving and pottery of the Americas arguably relate directly to Frank Stella and other hard-edge painters of the early 1960s..The paintings of Adolph Gottlieb, Rufino Tamayo, Joaquin Torres-Garcia, Frida Kahlo and many others exhibit a strong connection to Central American and South American indigenous painting..I gathered the material and set it here and in the History of painting because I think it is relevant to this article..and to that article..Although it can possibly be expanded into it's own article..I would like to see expansion in the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Mannerism and Baroque and Rococo sections also. In addition the works of Paul Gauguin, Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse and other early modernists, and Cubists and Fauves, were influenced by indigenous art as well. Modernist (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that the indigenous art was a self-contained culture outside Western culture, which the latter decided to partially incorporate. It sits oddly here and can easily be linked to elsewhere. Ty 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was plenty of influence from African & Japanese art on modern painters, but that doesn't mean they should be covered here. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is on it's own now at Painting in the Americas before Colonization. Modernist (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good move. Ty 17:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So currently there is Pre-Columbian art and [[Painting in the Americas before Colonization, but no Native American art? That will have to be rectified. The least that could be done is a cut and paste with minimal rewriting of lead sections and galleries from, oh Northwest Coast art, Inuit art, Maya art, Inca#Arts and technology, Olmec figurine, Olmec#Art, Sand painting, Navajo rug(GA), etc etc. I might do that one of these days. However, there is a great volume and variety of work across two continents, and I'm not quite prepared to deal with the classificatory side of the subject: these peoples did not see their creations as Art with a capital A, but usually as some form of sympathetic magic or ritual. I suppose a descriptive article with galleries would be a good start though. Native American art has been on the list of requested articles for as long as I can remember. Lithoderm (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good project....although there is a ton of material on wikipedia to work with like this: List of Native American artists and here also: [8]....Modernist (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at the least a skeleton setting up the links should be added. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Johnbod. Stubs would provide a strategic structure and allow future expansion. Ty 17:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll get on it. Things are very busy for now but I should be able to have it up within the week if I work on it here and there. Lithoderm (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started working on it at User:Lithoderm/Native American art. I wonder if I should include architecture in the overview as well? Lithoderm (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you move your discussion there please. It is totally irrelevant to this page.Research Method (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

May I gently remind you that no one would see the comment on the talk page of an article in my user-space? I continued the thread here because it started here. If you feel it is necessary, you can cut out the relevant previous posts and paste them on the WP:WPVA talk page. Lithoderm (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why discuss your private buisness in the section entitled balance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs)

Very considerate of you to post here, Lithoderm, to consult with others. Research Method, it is not "private business". It is wikipedia business. Ty 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it clearly reveals your POV, that you discuss it here.Research Method (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Shall we discuss your POV per Talk:Anti-Americanism#Rationality? I'd rather not. Instead I would like ideas on the question I posted. My decision to post it here was entirely a practical one. Stop goading me. Lithoderm (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a personal attack without any justification. Research Method is proving to be somewhat disruptive of the collegiate environment that normally prevails with visual art articles. If this carries on, then it will need to be addressed. I trust it will not continue. Ty 04:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA please!Research Method (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That was not an attack. Your remark was. Ty 04:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, NOT on the contributor.Peas & Luv (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

This page shows that there is a dispute over the Neutrality of this article. If you want to remove the tag, please explain why, don't just do it!Research Method (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Because one editor disagrees with another a reason for a tag does not wash..The article is neutral....although your bias against American art which is apparent and is quite transparent doesn't add up to neutrality either. Drop it already...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the section above entitled "Balance", that I didn't write.Research Method (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what that editor has to say about Transubstantiation shall we ask for comment? Modernist (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA?Research Method (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Read it, before you cite it. Ty 04:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It starts "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, NOT on the contributor."Research Method (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wondering what someone has to say is hardly attacking them. Ty 21:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Comment on content, NOT on the contributor"Peas & Luv (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The comment should be on the content...are you gonna change your name? Modernist (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening Section

This spends most of the time talking about the c19 & c20. It should be rewritten to deal more with Classical Greece and Rome, and the development of Oil Paint.Research Method (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not rewritten, just completed..Painting that survives from Greece is sparse, but a deeper researched section would indeed be useful; as would a deeper section on Roman painting; and Egyptian painting be helpful; the development of oil paint is also a welcome subject for discussion and inclusion. Add them...Modernist (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"the history of Western painting represents a continuous, though disrupted, tradition from antiquity.[1] Until the mid 19th century it was primarily concerned with representational and Classical modes of production, after which time more modern, abstract and conceptual forms gained favor." this needs to be rewritten. I have tried to do so.Research Method (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I categorically disagree. Given the level of disagreement you have generated here and elsewhere, please achieve consensus before making any changes..Modernist (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. It is an unsourced statement. Please provide some sources for it, as I disagree with it, since it spends too much time talking about c20 art.Research Method (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you do not like my name WP:NPA is called for here. The intro is fine..You protest too much!Modernist (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just me - read the comments above on bias towards c20 art.Research Method (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate your understanding No Personal Attacks.....thank you..Modernist (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we talk about how to write this article:)Research Method (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly you suggested a section on Roman painting, Greek painting and the history of oil painting. I agreed that they were worthwhile projects. The article is a work in progress. You think the 19th and 20th are covered and the earlier periods need balance - I agree - but the point is to build the sections that need building...like the Baroque and the earlier sections. They can be all improved..Modernist (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this discussion is about the opening section, and you are objecting to it being changed. Logically it would start with a definition of painting, then give a brief out line of painting through the ages. I am afraid you will revert it if I try to do that, or insist that I provide sources for things of common knowledge. Currently it has no sources, and provides an unusual summary that focuses on the c19 & c20, wheen painting was of limited importance, due to photography.Research Method (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - first you talk about one thing and then you change the subject. You reverted my edit to talk about Rome in the opening; then you complained about the weakness of those sections and you also suggested a history of oil painting - I said OK lets see it..I stand by that comment.. lets see your new section on Greece and Rome and oil painting...Modernist (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I started this discussion called "opening section". My comments here refer to the opening section:)Research Method (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"The history of Western painting represents a continuous, though disrupted, tradition from antiquity.[1] Until the mid 19th century it was primarily concerned with representational and Classical modes of production, after which time more modern, abstract and conceptual forms gained favour." is how the article currently starts. I don't know what is meant by "representational and Classical modes of production,", although I imagine a Marxist source, and more than half the sentence talks about the last 150 years. Can't we improve it?Research Method (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Find a sound source that deals with it and provide relevant text and citations. Please also format such references properly. Ty 21:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why can't I simply replace what is there with something better. It has no citations, and is inaccurate. Badly formatted references that work are better than no references, aren't they?Research Method (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Yes, refs that work are better than none. But why edit badly. Ty 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Because there are a lot of unsourced articles. I'm learning. We all have different priorities - you object to bad formatting, I object to a lack of citations.... At the moment there is one, and does the text quoted make sense?Research Method (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Then source them properly with the correct information in the ref for the benefit of the reader, and so other editors don't have to keep cleaning up after you. My priority is a good standard in content and presentation. Both are important. What text quoted? Ty 05:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Text quoted was ""The history of Western painting represents a continuous, though disrupted, tradition from antiquity.[1] Until the mid 19th century it was primarily concerned with representational and Classical modes of production, after which time more modern, abstract and conceptual forms gained favour." I can't understand it. What is the "Classical mode of production" of the history of Western painting.Peas & Luv (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken - the lead is good the way it is. As discussed and it has been suggested by you that you add material to Roman and Greek painting..to which I agreed. The lead is fine, it does not need more references..it already has 6 references. Modernist (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Second sentence has no apparent ref, nor does third paragraph and last sentence, which is rather peacocky. I think the lead would read more easily if it followed the chronological sequence of the main text, which it is meant to summarise. At the moment it keeps jumping backwards and forwards in time. RM, bear in mind that the lead should summarise the content in the article, not introduce new material that is not in the main text. Therefore it would seem to be the main text that needs expanding in the pre-modern sections. Ty 05:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You! You say "the lead should summarise the content in the article,", can you source that, as I was under the impression that it should summarise the subject. I am sure that summarising should be on importance, not quantity of words in the article.Peas & Luv (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead is a micro-version of the article. See WP:LEAD. Ty 06:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Not the current state of the wikipedia article.Peas & Luv (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't cherry-pick. This is what the guideline says: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article ... The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article ... in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." Ty 06:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text" "a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic". I have read the guideline. There is agreement on this talk page that the article, as it stands, fails to cover important aspects of the article's topic. I don't see how that means that the lead shouldn't either.Peas & Luv (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead does succinctly summarize the article..and the 6 refs are quite enough for a lead. As discussed the article can use additional material concerning Imperial Rome and Greek painting, otherwise remove the recent edits about Rome that you added....Modernist (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Initially serving imperial, private, civic, and religious patronage, Western painting later found audiences in the aristocracy and the middle class. From the Middle Ages through the Renaissance painters worked for the church and a wealthy aristocracy. Beginning with the Baroque era artists received private commissions from a more educated and prosperous middle class. By the 19th century painters became liberated from the demands of their patronage to only depict scenes from religion, mythology, portraiture or history. The idea "art for art's sake" began to find expression in the work of painters like Francisco de Goya, John Constable, and J.M.W. Turner. The rise of the art gallery provided patronage in the 20th Century.

Western painting reached its zenith in Europe during the Renaissance, in conjunction with the refinement of drawing, use of perspective, ambitious architecture, tapestry, stained glass, sculpture, and the period before and after the advent of the printing press. Following the depth of discovery and the complexity of innovations of the Renaissance the rich heritage of Western painting (from the Baroque to Contemporary art) continues into the 21st century." I have removed this section as it is unsourced, and unbalanced. It's too long too.Peas & Luv (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't vandalize the article...WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is not a valid reason for your apparent attack on this article...Modernist (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)::

It is not vandalism to remove unsupported POV sections to the talk page, following discussion. These sections are innaccurate - two examples -"by the 19th century painters became liberated from the demands of their patronage to only depict scenes from religion, mythology, portraiture or history"-they were paid to depict Erotic Scenes, Landscapes, Still Lives etc from Roman times. "Western painting reached its zenith in Europe during the Renaissance" what about Apelles, etc, etc. Peas & Luv (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Simply not the case!! The lead is reasonably and succinctly accurate and referenced...Modernist (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe what you have written there - "they were paid to depict Erotic Scenes, Landscapes, Still Lives etc from Roman times." uh - the article is not about that - maybe write another article...Modernist (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Western Painting. Currently it claims Roman painting is part of the subject. Hence the section should reflect Roman Art. What is the article about, if it is not about painting?Peas & Luv (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be clear. What section? The lead section? Roman painting has a very small place in the main text, so it may not even be necessary to mention it in the lead, or only briefly. I don't see what point you're trying to make in your last sentence. Ty 06:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the current text"The prosperity of seventeenth century Holland led to an enormous production of art by large numbers of painters who were mostly highly specialised and painted only genre scenes, landscapes, Still-lifes, portraits or History paintings. Technical standards were very high, and Dutch Golden Age painting established a new repertoire of subjects that was very influential until the arrival of Modernism." This contradicts the Lead "by the 19th century painters became liberated from the demands of their patronage to only depict scenes from religion, mythology, portraiture or history"". I would repeat that the lead should summarise the topic, or ideal article, not just what has been put here already.Peas & Luv (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. The lead summarises the article. Write the article first. Then summarise it. Ty 07:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:V unreferenced material can be removed, but this should not be done unless there is a valid reason. RM, you have also removed text that is referenced.[9] There's a lot of opinions above, but no secondary sources to support assertions. That is the only way to keep material. Ty 06:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The one reference does not support the statement made. I left the referenced statement, even though I disagree with it. My reason for removal is that it is POV, doesn't make sense.Peas & Luv (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Above you stated your objections as "unsourced, and unbalanced. It's too long." Now it's "POV, doesn't make sense". Make up your mind. In fact the lead section is too short for the length of the article. Ty 06:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lead does not reflect the relative importance of the topics discussed, it is badly written, it contains significant errors, and it lacks citations. It bares little or no relation to the article. It does not represent the different POVs associated with the topic. It gives udue prominence to the c20.Peas & Luv (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

I suggest, RM, that you post a suggestion for the lead section below, summarising the article, so that we can gain a consensus on it. Ty 07:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete what is there, or provide some reason for keeping it, other than the fact that it is there. I will try and source a text.Peas & Luv (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please post a lead section below as you think it should be. Ty 07:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I will.Peas & Luv (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I will provide new references for the lead as is...don't remove what will be referenced including what has been qualified....The lead is fine, and new references will be added..the lead currently has 10 references, the lead is fine as it is. However I will add more, when time permits - Modernist (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not simply a question of you finding references to support the claims that you have made, it is about reflecting the subject.Peas & Luv (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is very good to add references, but I do not think this is an appropriate source [Discussion of the role of patrons in the Renaissance http://www.geocities.com/rr17bb/patronage.html retrieved November 11, 2008]Peas & Luv (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate source for the second sentence of an article about western painting - Aesthetics and Philosophy of Arts Explaining Modernism W. Stephen Croddy West Chester State University?Peas & Luv (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A university is a reliable source. Ty 03:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a university, it is an apparently unreviewed essay by a student or staff member on a university website Explaining Modernism which doesn't meat wikipedia standards. What about geocities?Peas & Luv (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Croddy is Professor of Philosophy at West Chester State University and well published as an author. Modernist (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Aesthetics and Philosophy of Arts Explaining Modernism" hardly combats the charge that the lead, and article, is biased towards the c20. Does it qualify as a suitable source given the number of books and articles specifically dealing with "western Painting" published by mainstream presses, journals, and newspapers. Peas & Luv (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that the references attached support this statement -"During the 19th century the rise of the commercial art gallery provided patronage in the 20th Century." Please correct thisPeas & Luv (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I supplied biographies of Georges Petit and Paul Durand-Ruel two of the most powerful 19th century commercial gallerists in history - supplied from the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. and an article about an exhibition about Ambroise Vollard's collection and gallery - a pivotal commercial gallerist of the 19th and 20th centuries....those three and their galleries more than adequately explain the rise of the commercial gallery in the 19th and 20th centuries..and the resulting patronage from those dealers...Durand-Ruel provided stipends - later emulated by Leo Castelli. Modernist (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"During the 19th century the rise of the commercial art gallery provided patronage in the 20th Century." But what about the time travel involved?Peas & Luv (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of dubious references have been added to the lead section. Can somebody revise them, as Modernist seems to have issues with me.Peas & Luv (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please itemise, listing refs you consider problematic and why. A list form using bullet points (code for that is an asterisk at the beginning of each line) would be a good format. Ty 07:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Content

There is too much c20, esp post war, and not enough other stuff - see above.Peas & Luv (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Add the stuff you think is missing. Ty 03:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather flag it, so people realise something is missing.Peas & Luv (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong tag. Neutrality is not the issue; it's overall balance. I don't know what the tag is for that. Actually, what you're asking for is for the earlier sections to be expanded. Ty 07:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Move/split article?

I'm wondering whether the article should be renamed as "Modern western painting" or "20th century western painting", or that content split with the early sections left and a summary of the removed content. Ty 07:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the second suggestion.

Peas & Luv (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, do it! --Sailko (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

While I do not agree at all...primarily because the both the 20th century and the 21st century are utterly intertwined with roots in all of the earlier periods of western art; and direct and intimate connections exist between the 19th century and the 20th century on many levels and directions; however because of the necessitation of the great length of the 20th century section I'm giving the considerable consideration to a separation. One of the reasons for it's length is that recent history is impossible to sort out in terms of what counts as important and what directions don't count; it's much easier to see from the distance of a few hundred years....recent art history has to be shown as far more open-ended...anything can happen as unknown art ventures into the future...and what once looked important might fade from view..For now, major movements and working directions remain included...Modernist (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

German Expressionism

The article refers to Die Brücke et al in a separate section from German expressionism, referring to German expressionism as a 1920's phenomenon. How were Die Brücke and Der Blaue Reiter not part of German expressionism, as this seems to imply? The "German Expressionism, Social realism, regionalism, American Scene painting, Symbolism" is an odd jumble anyhow, but perhaps the term that we want is New Objectivity? That would seem to fit better with the Dix work in that section. Lithoderm 17:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The article appreciates and needs constructive work...add whatever improvements you think will work..Modernist (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a little.. I'd like to tie in their imagery to that of the mexican muralists- Grosz's combination of gas masks and Christ is particularly reminiscent of Orozco's Modern Migration of the Spirit... Guernica, regionalism, it's all a response to the tensions of the approach of WWII- I'll add more later, not today. Lithoderm 19:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You know before I move this article, I'd like to finish it better than it is...Modernist (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:'The Robe Following Her - 4', oil on canvas painting by Jim Dine, 1984-5.jpg

The image File:'The Robe Following Her - 4', oil on canvas painting by Jim Dine, 1984-5.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved..Modernist (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Wikimedia Foundation[10]. Kat Walsh statement.[11]:

Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.

Since individual projects have differing community standards and there are potentially legal issues in different jurisdictions, individual projects may choose to be more restrictive than Foundation policy requires, such as the many projects that do not allow "fair use" media at all. However, no project may have content policies less restricive, or that allow licenses other than those allowed on Wikimedia Commons and limited fair use. Modernist (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rating

This is a C rating article due to lack of sourcing, pecock terms, and edit wars. I think it has also become an impossible wicket. I would like to wipe it and start from scratch but I am not a wiki mod. Insead I'm going to say 'I see whole sections without a single sitation. Fix it.'

I'm coming back in two days to delete EVERY PARAGRAPH without at least one citation in it. I will leave enough info to link to wiki pages holding the information, but I will delete all of the uncited non-linking sentences. Especially the 21st century part.71.213.239.203 (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also reading through the page shows me you're all wonderfully skilled wiki lawyers. My but is cutting this down to size going to be 'fun'. Still whomever rated this B was sniffing glue or something. No citation, peacock words all over, and I think there are maybe three sentences with a neutral point of view in the whole article. You all want to ramble about how triumphant your school of art is. Shut up about your favorite school of art. *I* Don't CARE what YOU think of a school of art, I just want to know the technical details... I don't care about reception, that's purely subjective. 71.213.239.203 (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly if you haven't yet worked out new comments go at the bottom, I don't recommend anything so drastic. This article is such a broad overview that almost all of it qualifies as Subject-specific common knowledge, which does not need referencing. Alternatively one could just add refs to the relevant chapters of Gardner's Art Through the Ages or a similar book every so often. There is lots of phrasing that should be improved, and in the later sections too many links to artists, but on a quick scan it is the statements that are referenced that are more likely to be dubious than those that aren't. What are these "technical details" of which you speak? You are absolutely right it is a C or lower though; but the subject is huge one. The lead does need replacing though. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Messy article

This article about western painting is filled with info about ancient Egypt and what not. I suggest a clean up and all info about non western painting is removed. 155.55.60.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

Number of images

Edit by J Milburn concerning non-free images.[12] Over half the article is about the 20th century. This is disproportionate. 19th century has 20 images in galleries; 20th century has 130 images in galleries. 20th century should have about 20 images like 19th century. I suggest moving the 20th century content to 20th century Western painting, just retaining here a similar size to 19th century. There will then be a NFC problem in the new article, but it can be dealt with there, and the sections can then be expanded. Ty 12:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here we go again...Modernist (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've eliminated 62 images so far, there are currently 68 images now. Keep in mind that the close proximity of the 20th century to contemporary culture today necessitates a deeper and more complete overview.I might re-add a few and eliminate others as I re-think the whole...Modernist (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not massive on the use of the gallery format to show the images, but I do appreciate the need for the use of a lot of images in an article like this. It would be best if all of the styles could be shown by free images (for the borderline cases, those movements big around the twenties, I think this is possible- free images to illustrate the style, with non-free images if they themselves are discussed). I am willing to trust those of you more familiar with the subject matter to an extent, but current usage does seem incredibly excessive. We're trying to document western painting, not act as a gallery to some of the best paintings from the west. J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I will trim and change more of the gallery imagery into the text as time permits, Ty can help by locating free image replacements...Modernist (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thanks for looking into resolving this. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It will take work, I eliminated three galleries, but added a few images back into text. I'm working on it over the next few days...Modernist (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)