Talk:List of contemporary artists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Proposal
I'd like to propose that we make sure that artists listed here have achieved some degree of acceptance within the art world as important contemporary artists. One way to determine that is that an artist has been exhibited widely and has been reviewed in the art press. Therefore, if they don't appear much in Art Index, they could be considered not appropriate for this list. Art Index is probably the oldest (1929) and most most widely available index which covers hundreds of major art publications. Therefore, it could be one of our standard "tests" to use in determining an artist's appropriateness for this List. Any thoughts?--Sue Maberry 02:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. This list includes many non-notable artists. -Will Beback 22:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Examples? I've looked over the list and most seem to be of an international reputation. Having a page on wikipedia is step one. Having an internaional track-record is step two (major exhibitions, biennales, etc.). Freshacconci
[edit] Problems with "Contemporary art" definition
THIS DEFINITION IS MORE OR LESS OK: This is a list of contemporary artists, i.e. whose peak of activity can be situated somewhere between the 1970s (the advent of postmodernism) and the present day.
BUT THIS PART IS A PROBLEMATIC DEFINITION: Artists in this list have proven their importance because their work has been shown in contemporary art exhibitions of worldwide importance, such as the documenta or the Venice Biennale, the Sao Paulo Art Biennial or exhibited in major modern or contemporary art museums and institutes.
WHY? BECAUSE IT PUTS ALL THE LIVING ARTIST INTO ONE SLOT!!! THERE MUST BE A POSSIBILITY TO CHARACTERIZE THE LIVING ARTISTS AND THEIR GENRES MORE ACCURATELY. OTHERWISE THE ERA WE ARE LIVING LOOKS ODD FROM THE VARIATION POINT OF VIEW IN THE FUTURE.
THIS TEXT IS MORE TRUE BUT STILL OVERLAPPING IS MUCH MORE WIDE SPREAD: There may be some overlap with the list of modern artists, since it is difficult to define the boundaries between modern and contemporary art.
PROPOSAL: LETS CREATE MORE FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM TO CATEGORIZE CURRENT ART STYLES! GIVE PROPOSALS HERE, I WORK FOR IT TOO! Jari Lindstrom, recearcher
- Jari - thanks for your input. Certainly there is going to be overlap with earlier artistic eras. Pigeonholes aren't perfect. However individual artists can appear on more than one list. Another concern I have is that non-notable artists are being added. Of course it's natural for an artist, or an artist's admirer, to add their name, but I think that we should either change the defnition or enforce it. (PS thanks for signing your comment. If you get a username you only have to type four tildes "~" to sign. Oh, and please keep the CAPITALS to a minimum when writing- it's like SHOUTING!!!!) Cheers, -Willmcw 23:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Added Ida Applebroog to the list and wrote a brief bio. Funkstart 3:30, 20 Nov 2005
I quite agree with Jari except for the living artist part - many artists who have contributed to contemporary visual art since the 60's - 70's like Eva Hess or Robert Smithson have passed to the great beyond, but they should still exist on the page. This "Biennial-centric" idea of what constitutes contemporary practice rarely allows for 2nd, 3rd and 4th world artist a chance to be represented.
You might try having a list that separates contemporary artists who exhibit locally, (within their respective cities and towns), ones that exhibit nationally and ones that are internationally recognized. If they are local or regional perhaps, they could be separated in accordance with their nationalities (where they reside most of the time). This could be further broken down into the sub-disciplines of practice i.e. installation, sculpture, photography etc...
Often artists garner attention by being in the right place at the right time. Many contemporary artists very rarely become "art stars" some are academics and some operate very well within their communities.
The job of editing this certainly is not easy and I wish you luck. Troy David Ouellette, Contemporary Artist
[edit] Criteria
Artists should not be listed unless there is a page dedicated to the artist. Then from the details listed it can be judged whether the artist is worthy of inclusion....or even exists. Presumably the idea of the page is to gather together in one place the names of the most prominent or interesting artists working today so that, by following the links, someone can obtain an overview of the contemporary art scene. Pliny 17:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The list needs attention
This page needs a lot of attention. The criteria is fine, but all the artists listed don't really fit. I have a good well researched list [1] which I will put up here soon as I get a chance. I may delete of lot of the artists who aren't that promient. Any objections?--Sue Maberry 02:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to get art historians and people knowledgeable about the arts involved!
[edit] Laurence Gartel
For sure he belongs here. He's one of the digital art pioneers. Also Professor Herbert W. Franke belongs here. Proof: [2] Who will decide who belongs here or not.
