Talk:Aleksandr Kamensky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Article style
It inadmissible to write an encyclopedia article in the glorifying style. Please read the policy Wikipedia:neutral point of view. Please also provide the published sources for the information you put into the article: there is a policy Wikipedia:no original research. I also explained why I deleted the quotations: please provide proof that they were recognized as notable. Please also restore my remarks you deleted from your talk page: I warned you that this is inadmissible. Please get yourself familiar with wikipedia policies and traditions. mikka (t) 16:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stern style
Please provide the Russian language translation "stern style", as well as it explanation, since it seems the term seems to be unknown to general western public. mikka (t) 16:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reference
Please provide references of notability and evidence of statements you continue to restore. mikka (t) 19:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stern style
This was an extensive quotaiton in the article.
- "The primary characteristic of "stern style" was the choice of daily life as subject matter and strict, exact, deeply truthful, depiction of it, without any hint of embellishment or pageantry. At the same time the inner core of the style was a romanticized perception of contemporary reality. There was absolutely no trace of pessimism, that the numerous blocker critics tried to attribute to "stern style". The only way these experts knew how to judge a work of art was by finding a similarity with one of the preconceived notions in their cheap toolbox of stereotypes that the academia supplied them with. They were not in the habit of looking at reality, but rather used a primitive conceptual model. Of course next to pieces that depicted huge smiling crowds cheering and applauding for any and every reason, the canvases of the "stern" could easily appear pessimistic. But if you examine these paintings with an open mind, you’d see that they are clearly life affirming.
- The characters of "Our Weekdays", "Repairmen", "Polarmen", are intimately affectionate with the everyday life that surrounds them. They live and breathe this, such days make up the fabric and furthermore, the meaning of their lives. They seem enlightened, as if every normal day was consistent with their long-term goals. This is the gist of "stern style".
- Sure, the heroes of the "sterns" don’t get emotional over every event, but live in agony of everyday struggles, and get their jollies from it. The contrast of a passion for life and enduring hardship is quite characteristic to "stern" art… Willful, manly traits are the trademark of "stern" art, smoothing the distinction between it and historical compositions (the best among them: "Communists", 1957—1960 and "Burned by the martial sun", 1964—1967 by Gelij Korzhev).
- Obviously this manly attitude in perception was not new to Soviet art. The masters of the 20’s and 30’s (Gerasimov, Kuznetsov, Drevin) used a similar style. The compositions were different, but there definitely was something common in the attitude. It is not surprising that the "stern" have chosen the stylistic preferences of these masters."
Please provide the source of the quotation. Even better, make it into an encyclopedic article, if this is an accepted style in Russian arts. Also, please proveide the name in Russian language. mikka (t) 23:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Syntax on one line
Hi, can someone please close the italics quotes on this line, sometime before the newline:
# Knightly Feat: A Book About The Sculpture Of Anna Golubkina (1978) (reprinted as Anna Golubkina, Her Personality, And Age in 1990)
(Please see WP:WS for more info). Would fix it myself, but cannot because article is currently protected. Thank you. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Problem with the article
The article did not cite a single reference - even for AK citations! Strictly speaking all the article or any part of it can be deleted per WP:V.
Some claims in the article are extravagant, like AK been the most prominent art critic of the 20th century, they may be put in the article as opinions if supported by citations (X considered AK to be the most prominent .... []). To be entered as facts they need to be supported by multiple WP:RS of Britannica-Mayor University text book range.
The article use multiple WP:WEASEL words instead of just naming the opponents of AK it puts some negative phrases and sort of clues. The tone is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
The article should be either improved ASAP or stubbed to the verifiable information available by quick googling Alex Bakharev 11:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
