Talk:Brian Wood (artist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A pov problem was removed: " His influence upon photographers in particular has been extremely important, widespread, and well documented though characteristically in a quiet, almost behind-the-scenes way.

I agree that "though characteristically in a quiet, almost behind-the-scenes way." is subjective/biographical. However, the rest of the statement is objective fact. E.g. Bill Viola has adopted many of Wood's ideas; major photographic triptychs in MOMA are direct descendants of Wood's earlier triptychs also collected by MOMA.

If the statement of influence should be removed from this article, then "significant contribution to the genre of video art is today widely acknowledged on the international stage" should be removed from the "Bill Viola" article. I don't advocate either removal, but fair is fair.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DirkJJohnson (talk • contribs).

I would agree with both removals. This is a basic tenant of Wikipedia - if the statement can't be sourced it is only the editor's opinion. TheMindsEye 22:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Tyrenius 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thirded: Not only does Wood lack an entry in the Oxford Companion to the Photograph (2005), but the index to this splendid work (three columns per page, almost thirty pages) doesn't mention Wood at all.

This article strikes me as most peculiar. Partly it's a matter of the back-to-front lists (which smell of a CV), but partly it's the way the description of the "Work" is delegated to one James Casebeer, who writes:

"Wood's works are biological, anatomical, spiritual and erotic." Further on in the article Casebeer states, "all this work seems to result from a deep internal investigation of the brain via the trauma of the body. And this mind body unity at the core of Wood's work reveals a cataclysmic trauma of spiritual proportions."

Question: What, if anything, does this actually mean? -- Hoary 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am working to correct the format.

Regarding description of the work: the work is very complex. Descriptions tend to be somewhat difficult to comprehend without seeing the work itself. My apologies for being slow on this first article I've tried to write. The Casebere was only the first of what I'm trying to collect. My distillation of other comments was deleted by someone else, leaving only the Casebere.

It is true that Wood tends to be under-represented in official art publications. But among artists he is very well known and respected. Also, the museums and major collectors who own his work should count for something.

Regarding the biography sounding like a resume, how does this differ from the entry of nearly any contemporary artist, including Wood's namesake, the comic book guy? Does one care anything at all about an artist's life except how his/her career developed? This is opaque to me. If someone would point to an article about a contemporary artist whose entry doesn't sound like a resume, I'd appreciate it. Dirk 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Dirk 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bouncing back so amicably. (You probably hadn't been expecting the Spanish Inquisition.)

The article on that other Brian Wood is not so hot. Unfortunately, WP is stiff with articles that aren't so hot. No, I'm tired of being polite: The average article is crap.

I generally steer clear of "art"; a lot of it is very much worth writing up in articles, but those articles tend to quote stuff that seems to belong in "Pseuds Corner" but aren't quite funny enough. So I'll stick to living photographers. Hiroh Kikai is an article with which I'm moderately happy. It doesn't have a list of solo exhibitions, though such a list might well be a good thing. (I'm too lazy to research it. I did provide such a list for Seiji Kurata.) It also doesn't have a list of group exhibitions, and I'd oppose any such addition. A list of group exhibitions is the kind of thing that would belong at the end of a two-hundred-page retrospective of the artist's career, but I think not in an encyclopedia entry. Of course, particularly significant group shows (notably those predating solo shows) may well be noteworthy; but I think even these are better integrated within the text.

Reversing the order of list entries is a drag. What I do is to feed them into OpenOffice's spreadsheet program (Excel is just as good, if you prefer to pay money for your software) and use that to reverse the order. (I did this for e.g. the list of Robert Altman's films.) And even then it's still enough of a bore for me not to want to volunteer to do the job for you! -- Hoary 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format

No external links in the body of the text please.

Don't use br for break normally. A space is sufficient.

Don't use br to make lists. Put an asterisk at the beginning of each line and it makes a bullet point.

Please sign posts with 4 tildes ~ (on talk page, not article page).

Please see WP:COI and WP:AUTO.

Tyrenius 23:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)