Talk:List of American artists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 List of American Artists proposal 2 List of American artists 3 Artist classification 4 American Artists born 1900–1929 5 List division 6 List of printmakers 7 Dividing the List into Separate Pages 8 American Artists born 1930–1959

[edit] List of American Artists proposal

I would like to create a simple "List of American Artists" page. In the past, administrators have deleted attempts to maintain such a page, due to lack of structure (see the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American artists). There are in fact dozens of lists on Wikipedia that list artists by nationality, and the absesce of a list for American artists seems to me to be an oversight. There is a "category" of American Artists, but there is no structure at all to this page, outside of listing artists alphabetically -- irresepective of dates and media. After a couple of attempts to create a better structured "list" page, I've had some exchanges with administrator Tyrenius, who suggested that a better structured list could be approved, and that I should seek input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. I've written out a page, and am outlining my ideas here, and requesting input.

Among the concerns are that the quantity of artists could get out of hand, not only because of "non-notable entries," but also because the term "artist" can be seen as very broad. I would like to create a page simply dedicated to "fine artists" in the "visual arts," as described below.

The header would be as follows:

[edit] List of American artists

This is a list of historically recognized American "fine artists" known for the creation of artworks that are primarily visual in nature, such as painting, sculpture, photography, printmaking, installation art, avant-garde performance art, and experimental film.

Click edit to see important hidden comment.

I'm new to this -- why is this comment "hidden"? Can anyone tell me what it means for some comments to be hidden and others not hidden? (Trackway 02:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Did you pick this up from somewhere? If you put the <! etc before & after text it is only seen when editing. Johnbod 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the tag used and how it works, but I'm unclear WHY it's used in this type of case ... why a comment needs to be visible only when editing, as opposed to being visible to the discussants generally? Trackway

[edit] Artist classification

All the artists I intend to list initially are already represented in individual Wikipedia pages, an example I would hope others making entries would follow. Also, the list would be divided up into specific periods, as follows:

American Artists born before 1800
American Artists born 1800–1899
American Artists born 1900–1929
American Artists born 1930–1959
American Artists born 1960–1989

An example of how the list would appear would be as follows:

[edit] American Artists born 1900–1929

• A

Ansel Easton Adams (1902-1984), photographer
Walter Inglis Anderson (1903-1965), painter
Ida Applebroog (1929-), painter

... and so forth

[edit] List division

Tyrenius suggested the possibility of dividing the 20th century into 4 periods; after some experimenting, I came to feel that dividing the century into 3 periods reflects the "generations" of artists in a much more traditionally "historical" way, in that it tends to keep artists together who are generally considered to be contemporaries of one another.

I'm looking for input from those interested. I can put up the page as described above at any time.

Thanks!

(Trackway 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

I think it's shaping up. My main concern is with contemporary artists. Such a list is a magnet for non-notables to add their own name. Also there are more viable articles on recent artists also, so I think the 20th century needs thinking about carefully. Maybe 1900-1950, 1950-1975, 1975-. This is only a suggestion. Also what needs consideration is whether it would be better to have separate lists for painters, sculptors, printmakers (we have one) etc. I have no fixed view, apart from the need for such things to be talked through with other editors. Tyrenius 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This way of dividing up the 20th century is possible, but it seems to me that the divisions I propose better reflect periods of style and mutual influence among generations, and read as less arbitrary; I'm not sure why. Maybe the periodicity of the wars and the Great Depression created a structure. Dividing the artists up by "media" makes some sense prior to the impact of the Surrealists and others of the avant-garde, but as older media-specific artistic practices diminished through the late 50s into the 60s and 70s and 80s, such strict divisions make much less sense anymore, except in a relatively narrow range of cases -- so many artists skipped around through all media, throughout the world; and today, sticking with one medium is close to non-existent, in avant-garde practices. It seems to me the list would be vastly more useful if it reflected such historical realities by listing the artists together by "period" rather than media. Regarding an avalanche of "non-notable contemporary artists" being added to the list: which artists are non-notable, of course, is always a matter of opinion and debate; but if the list of the latter part of the 20th century should become too lengthy, it would be relatively easy to create a second page for 1970 forward, I suppose, when the time comes. Trackway

I like the idea of the list being divided as suggested by the proposal. Although overall I am in favor of the distinctions between major disciplines like Painting, Sculpture, Printmaking, Video-film, Illustration, Commercial art. Modernist 11:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've observed after visiting dozens and dozens of Wikipedia pages for American artists -- especially those from the 1970s forward -- that over half of them seem to be described as working in two or more disciplines -- usually more. If all of these artists were to be listed in all the separate disciplines they work in, the list would be unbearably longer. And I'm not speaking only of "painters" who do "prints" on the side, as a secondary or supplemental activity; I'm speaking of artists who truly jump from discipline to discipline and treat each with equal significance. It makes the most sense to me to list such an artist as (for instance) "painter, sculptor, photographer, installation artist" rather than to list that same artist four times under four different categories of disciplines. Especially since the "meaning" of the artist's work as a whole may be significantly tied to the way they jump from discipline to discipline. Trackway

I agree - you could use abbreviations listed every so often to make entering easier. I would have eg: "painter, printmaker" (or "pt, prnt") & then a word of two for style: Pop Art, Hudson Valley School or whatever. Johnbod 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I think abbreviations look ugly. Why not multi-media or some such term, or if there is a note primary discipline, then "painting and multi-media" for example. Tyrenius 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if there is a more primary media, it should be listed first. In my experience, though, the term "multimedia artist" tends to suggest an artist who creates single works using a number of different media (like video and sculpture and performance all at once) -- as opposed to an artist who regularly creates different works in different media ... Trackway 06:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of printmakers

I got this one up recently, which no one has yet tried to delete. Tyrenius in particular saw it without the urge to delete. Of course it's far smaller, & is able to add value in ways categories can't by mentioning the different techniques. The categories attempted this with very poor results. You might find a similar approach works. I would do completely seperate lists by period, as you have so many people. Best of luck - I won't be able help I'm afraid. Johnbod 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dividing the List into Separate Pages

I'm trying to combine various bit of advice I read here ... I'm wondering if this solution might work to keep things orderly: making different pages for different periods; I think this is maybe what Johnbod is suggesting? This would be easier to follow, I think. It could reduce the problem of any one page becoming too long, and might not necessitate having to separate the pages at a later date. I'm imagining a page could look like this:

[edit] American Artists born 1930–1959

See also: List of American artists 1700-1799 List of American artists 1800-1899 List of American artists 1900-1929 List of American artists 1930-1959 List of American artists 1960-1989

This is a list of historically recognized American fine artists known for the creation of artworks that are primarily visual in nature, including traditional media such as painting, sculpture, photography, and printmaking, as well as more recent genres, including installation art, performance art, body art, conceptual art, and video art.

NOTE TO EDITORS: add names in alphabetical order, and please include biographical dates and the media most notably associated with each individual artist. Do not add your own name to this list.

• A

Vito Acconci (1940-), conceptual artist, installation artist, performance artist, filmmaker
Laurie Anderson (1947-), experimental performance artist, musician
Carl Andre (1935-), minimalist sculptor
Eleanor Antin (1935-), performance artist, filmmaker, installation artist
Michael Asher (1943-), conceptual artist, installation artist
Julie Ault (1957-), collaborative artist, curator
Alice Aycock (1946-), sculptor

. . . etc., etc.

There would be a MAIN page with the title List of American Artists that wouldn't have a list of names, it would just have links to the others ...

Does this make sense?

Trackway 06:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You might like to check out for some comparisons. List of painters by name seems to be one of the longest. I think it should start on one page like List of British artists and be split later if necessary. Intro should be tweaked to maybe:

including traditional media such as painting, sculpture, photography, and printmaking, as well as more recent genres, including installation art, performance art, body art, conceptual art and video art.

Tyrenius 01:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I had in mind, although I was thinking of longer periods, even for the 20th century. But yes. Johnbod 02:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The biggest maintenance problem concerns contemporary artists who don't reach WP:N adding their own names, and this is more likely to be younger ones born since 1960, so it's useful to keep this as it has been proposed in one section. Tyrenius 04:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius and Johnbod,

So you both are suggesting to keep the list all on one page, as originally proposed? I've looked at other pages, and one of the things that occurs to me is that if the different periods are listed as different SECTIONS, then not only is the page bound to become lengthy -- and thus harder to negotiate and maintain -- but if the artist names were to be made into alphabetical subsections (like the Painters page), the automatically-generated TOC box becomes hugely lengthy; and it seems that a compact TOC can't be created to alphabetize more one section (unless there is a clever TOC template that I haven't been able to locate). Maybe this is a non issue, but I thought I'd mention it.

I totally see the point, and I agree with you both that the list of post-1960s artists could become lengthy -- but this is connected to why I like dividing the list up into more than one page it could likely STAY that way, WITHOUT having to split it up later -- because, I figure, splitting it later would play havoc with all the pages that had trustingly linked to the original page.

I suppose having more than one page uses more memory? But there's a certain convenience, also, and more room to add things. And having the infobox in the upper right with the links makes it easy to negotiate to any of the other pages, as desired. I could easily combine everything before the 20th century into one page.

I'm pleased to put it up either way, if approved -- I just wanted to present my thoughts.

I like Tyrenius's introductory sentance better than the one I proposed ...

Still hoping for a consensus,

Trackway 05:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we have agreement that in principle the list(s) can be made. It's just a question of the exact form. It seems that it will be ordered by periods. I propose that artists should be listed by date of birth, not alphabetically, i.e. to use the model of List of British artists. This solves my main concern, as contemporary artists would be at the end of the list and hence easily monitored. Perhaps two articles List of American artists (pre 1900) and List of American artists (post 1900), the latter to include artists born in 1900. Tyrenius 02:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tyrenius,

Dividing the lists into List of American artists (pre 1900) and List of American artists (post 1900) seems like a good, reasonable solution.

In thinking about the ordering on the individual pages: on Wikipedia there are 38 active "Lists of Artists by Nationality" pages; of these, 20 of the Visual Artist lists are arranged alphabetically, for easy searching, which seems to be the norm; whereas only two out of the 38 (British and French) are arranged by order of birth (the rest are haphazard). In order to find a particular artist in the British and French lists, one has to scroll up and down, searching the numbers, until one finds him/her, guessing at the birth year. However, on the alphabetically ordered lists, when one knows an artist's name, one only needs to scroll directly to it. I really don't understand why ordering by birth year has any real advantages, since practically no one has memorized the birth years of artists. If the page is divided into generational (30 year) "periods," all the young, contemporary, potentially WP:Ns wind up in the same section at the bottom of the page anyhow, so I don't fully understand why it really matters, in the end? I find negotiating the birth-year-ordered lists cold and unfriendly -- I vote for alphabetizing the artists, it's easier on the mind and eye, easier to search and negotiate, and less dry and technocratic, I think. And in line with the vast majority of the other Lists of Artists by Nationality pages.

Trackway 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you know the name of an artist, then you don't need the list anyway. You can just put the name in the search box. Furthermore there are categories, which basically simply provide lists in alphabetical order. These are some of the point in the AfD. The one thing that the list can usefully do is to put artists in date order. It then becomes easy to see which artists are in the same generation etc. This is one thing that justifies having the list at all. The alphabetical ordering is one reason I nominated the list for AfD in the first place. It makes it redundant. It was a test case to sound community response. Others may well go the same way. Tyrenius 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)