This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles
Image of the Artwork?
Conspicuously absent are images of the dress, ideally worn by a model and later as dried up beef jerky on a mannequin. Who owns the copyright for the image of the model wearing the dress? That image would best go with the article.
Chellspecker (
talk)
08:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, given my experience with trying to post images in
Olek, even if we could find someone with a the image that they would release as Creative Commons. The content of the image would still be the copyrighten work, subject not only to copyright, but possibly even
CARFAC fees, if we want to get technical about it. (Also, not sure anyone has ever worn this artwork, unlike the latter meat dresses.) It's regretable, but I don't think this can be illustrated until 60 years after Sterbak's death. That said,
she looks healthy. --
Zanimum (
talk)
13:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I've agreed with the Controvery section, even though all the controversy was during the one showing, not the earlier or later exhibits. (There are Facebook complaints to the Walker Art Center when they collected it, but that doesn't count.) As the parallels section was so short, I've merged it description, as opposed to simply renaming it history.
While there are some PDFs of newspaper articles on my hard drive, that I haven't gone through, I really don't remember any critical reviews of the piece, anywhere. In retrospect, perhaps I should have intralibrary loaned Nemiroff's catalog, but it will most likely be favourable, and nothing to counterbalance it. (Canadian Art magazine would have a review, likely, but only the Art Gallery of Ontario archives the magazine, and I just can't work with their schedule.) Basically all the coverage was news reports of "he said, she said", and occasional trivial agreements to statements by columnists, but not actual art critics.
Just thought I'd note, the critical reviews listed at the end of the controversy section are either of clothing issues or Sterbak in general, as opposed to this particular work.
Perhaps "Reception" is a better term to broadly collection both (indirect) formal critical reaction and controversy? --
Zanimum (
talk)
19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict)
reply
I like the changes so far. Very good. Only one small problem: in the "Exhibition" section, it says in the first para that her first exhibit received "scant" attention. Then it says the retrospective "was relatively well-attended, compared to other shows, thanks to the controversy." The problem is the "controversy" isn't described until the next section "Controversy". Is there a way you can resolve this so that the reader knows about the controversy before you mention her retrospective show? Otherwise, excellent!
MathewTownsend (
talk)
20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Regarding you second question, I'm not sure. Can you tie this work to her work in general and then the comments could refer to them all? They all have similar themes, according to the article on her.
MathewTownsend (
talk)
20:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)reply
GA review-see
WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles
Image of the Artwork?
Conspicuously absent are images of the dress, ideally worn by a model and later as dried up beef jerky on a mannequin. Who owns the copyright for the image of the model wearing the dress? That image would best go with the article.
Chellspecker (
talk)
08:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, given my experience with trying to post images in
Olek, even if we could find someone with a the image that they would release as Creative Commons. The content of the image would still be the copyrighten work, subject not only to copyright, but possibly even
CARFAC fees, if we want to get technical about it. (Also, not sure anyone has ever worn this artwork, unlike the latter meat dresses.) It's regretable, but I don't think this can be illustrated until 60 years after Sterbak's death. That said,
she looks healthy. --
Zanimum (
talk)
13:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I've agreed with the Controvery section, even though all the controversy was during the one showing, not the earlier or later exhibits. (There are Facebook complaints to the Walker Art Center when they collected it, but that doesn't count.) As the parallels section was so short, I've merged it description, as opposed to simply renaming it history.
While there are some PDFs of newspaper articles on my hard drive, that I haven't gone through, I really don't remember any critical reviews of the piece, anywhere. In retrospect, perhaps I should have intralibrary loaned Nemiroff's catalog, but it will most likely be favourable, and nothing to counterbalance it. (Canadian Art magazine would have a review, likely, but only the Art Gallery of Ontario archives the magazine, and I just can't work with their schedule.) Basically all the coverage was news reports of "he said, she said", and occasional trivial agreements to statements by columnists, but not actual art critics.
Just thought I'd note, the critical reviews listed at the end of the controversy section are either of clothing issues or Sterbak in general, as opposed to this particular work.
Perhaps "Reception" is a better term to broadly collection both (indirect) formal critical reaction and controversy? --
Zanimum (
talk)
19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict)
reply
I like the changes so far. Very good. Only one small problem: in the "Exhibition" section, it says in the first para that her first exhibit received "scant" attention. Then it says the retrospective "was relatively well-attended, compared to other shows, thanks to the controversy." The problem is the "controversy" isn't described until the next section "Controversy". Is there a way you can resolve this so that the reader knows about the controversy before you mention her retrospective show? Otherwise, excellent!
MathewTownsend (
talk)
20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Regarding you second question, I'm not sure. Can you tie this work to her work in general and then the comments could refer to them all? They all have similar themes, according to the article on her.
MathewTownsend (
talk)
20:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)reply
GA review-see
WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)