Talk:Western painting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --sparkitTALK 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)

[edit] 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. --sparkitTALK 17:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)