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)
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)
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)
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)
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. --sparkit TALK 17:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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
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)
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)
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:
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
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)
The image Image:Nature Symbolized.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 01:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this article largely consist of unsupported assertions of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Please re-examine the article - whole sections lack any references, for example the middle ages. Research Method ( talk) 16:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, for the heads up..I will add references if possible..to that section... Modernist ( talk) 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Why are none of the talk page contributions supported by references? How can anyone know how much value an anonymous contributor's point of view has. Unless you want to declare your qualifications please reference your arguments. Otherwise it's like a playground argument - Yankee art is better than Froggy. Research Method ( talk) 01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
the following paragraph needs sources.
At the beginning of the 21st century Contemporary painting and Contemporary art in general continues in several contiguous modes, characterized by the idea of pluralism. The "crisis" in painting and current art and current art criticism today is brought about by pluralism. There is no consensus, nor need there be, as to a representative style of the age. There is an anything goes attitude that prevails; an "everything going on", and consequently "nothing going on" syndrome; this creates an aesthetic traffic jam with no firm and clear direction and with every lane on the artistic superhighway filled to capacity. Consequently magnificent and important works of art continue to be made albeit in a wide variety of styles and aesthetic temperaments, the marketplace being left to judge merit. << needs wayyyy more sources. 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.239.203 ( talk)
Is Of Minor Importance, and can be reached through romanticism. It has been given undue prominence. Research Method ( talk) 03:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do not give 3 references for seperate elements of one reference. Both your references support the arguement that the Hudson River School is of little interest to anyone outside the usa, and that it lacks popularity even there. Novack says:
" In Europe there is only one major collection of American nineteenth-century painting: that assembled by Hans Heinrich and Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza. Few European collections contain any nineteenth-century American art at all. In 2000, the Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza in Madrid launched the first-ever large-scale American landscape show in Europe, "Exploring Eden," to which the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, loaned Cole's 1842 "Voyage of Life" series. (An earlier version exists at the Munson-Williams-Proctor Arts Institute in Utica, New York, so its overseas journey was not as curatorially heart-stopping as that of "The Course of Empire.")" " "European scholars at large have been remarkably reluctant to admit American artists of this period into the pantheon of great landscape painters. In the wake of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, as Western nations join with the United States to confront global terrorism, "American Sublime" offers an excellent opportunity for the European nations to assimilate American art into the Western tradition." States of grace: Barbara Novak on "American Sublime" - The Vault Preview - Thomas Cole exhibit
Judith Hansen O'Toole says
"Founded by Thomas Cole (1801 - 1848), who, in 1818 at age seventeen, emigrated from England to a fresh, new America, the movement declined during the last decades of the nineteenth century when artists and their patrons became enamored of different aesthetic ideas and styles imported from Europe. "
"The purpose of American Scenery: Different Views in Hudson River School Painting is to revive the public's ability to appreciate nineteenth-century American landscape painting and to provide insight to the iconographical base that gives it greater meaning in order to more fully comprehend its achievement. Different Views in Hudson River School Painting by Judith Hansen O'Toole
I am not saying it has no significance in the USA, just that it is of minor importance to Western Painting.. Research Method ( talk) 12:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
CommentI disagree again - what they are saying is there needs a reevaluation and another understanding of the impact of HRS painting on the art of the 20th century. They are focusing on the movement; and its lack of historical support in European collections....and it should stay as it is in this article. Modernist ( talk) 12:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Then why does the Hudson River School matter more than he Boston School or the White Mountain School? And why should it be in Europe? Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese artists went to Paris too, but they are not included in this article.
Research Method ( talk) 13:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No! It is not suitable to be compared with Romanticism. Please read the references I have cited. This is an EDUCATIONAL project, nor a national one. Research Method ( talk) 13:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC) merged two threads Research Method ( talk) 13:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a seperate section for American painting, but some has been included in Europe. Should it be seperated? Research Method ( talk) 12:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
"Developments in modern art in Europe came to America from exhibitions in New York City such as the Armory Show in 1913. Previously American Artists had based the majority of their work on European Arts. " Visual arts of the United States
Should the section "painting in the Americas" be deleted then? I am not sure why it is included in Western Painting, and it has no text. Research Method ( talk) 02:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like "indigenous early painting " rather than Western Painting to me. Research Method ( talk) 02:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Who's saying what? Unsigned posts, bullet points when colons should be used to indent talk. How can anyone else follow this properly? See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout and Wikipedia:TP#Formatting. Ty 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
If there are still issues to be resolved and it would help to have the participation of other editors, I suggest starting a completely new section to summarises the points to address. Ty 10:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Is the Hudson bay School part of Western Painting? I argue that I've never heard of it. Research Method ( talk) 02:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"Cultural cross-pollination in the 19th century brought to us the “Paris School” of painting, with its commitment to realistic natural figures and strong traditional skills. This French academic style schooled many Americans and Europeans in fine art painting. Artists spilled out of Europe and Paris toward New York, across the sea and then across the landscapes they were so fond of capturing. These painters pursued their own artistic visions and shared them with students in Boston and New York, giving birth to the Hudson River School, the Boston School and New Hampshire’s White Mountain School.[ a look at the luminous, from Paris to Portsmouth by Rick Agran
Research Method ( talk) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The School of Paris <-- article can be accessed by a click.. Modernist ( talk) 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently this editor Research Method ( talk · contribs) is of the opinion that the Hudson River School should be removed from this article or at best does not belong where it is placed in the 19th century section. I would appreciate other editors opinions concerning the Hudson River School's placement in the article..In my opinion it is currently correctly placed.. Modernist ( talk) 03:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of Halloween, I hope that guy's user page doesn't look like that every day.... He states his agenda on his user page thus: "Seeking to remove united states art from western painting." Lithoderm ( talk) 03:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This distorts my argument which was that the Hudson Bay School was a minor offshoot of Romanticism, best placed in the United States Section of this article. Research Method ( talk) 06:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
c19 Russian Painting is far more important to western art that American Painting [1]. It gave rise to Malevich's Black Square of 1913. If you disagree with this statement, please explain why your unsupported view has more value than mine. Research Method ( talk) 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
How does that reference add anything to your argument? Lithoderm ( talk) 02:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, it's called the National Gallery of Art. And of course the Russian gallery is going to say that Russian art is far more important. Lithoderm ( talk) 04:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The Hudson River School is part of the Romantic Movement. This is stated in the current text -"In the United States the Romantic tradition of landscape painting was known as the Hudson River School". The fact that it doesn't end with "ism" is a hint that it doesn't belong there. Rather than stating that the Hudson River School IS important because you say so, provide some citations to back up your points of view. Currently the only reference cited for hudson river school leads to an article that says it is not important in western art, containing the text
"In the wake of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, as Western nations join with the United States to confront global terrorism, "American Sublime" offers an excellent opportunity for the European nations to assimilate American art into the Western tradition. [2]"
Which hardly butresses the case for its inclusion as a significant element of Western Art". I rather think this supports my argument. I understood that wikipedia was opposed to misleading citations, and ad hominem arguements, and I am sad to see my rational arguments criticised on the basis of my artistic expression on my user page. I would be interested to know what is strange about my argument. Research Method ( talk) 00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested to know what is strange about my referenced argument under Hudson River School above, and why my opponents are so shy of referencing their points of view. Research Method ( talk) 01:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Research Method ( talk) 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I added Symbolism to the heading. I added it, but Modernist has removed it. Is there a consensus on this? Research Method ( talk) 02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
We only have symbolism mentioned in two headings so far:
I'm sure one more wouldn't harm. OK, end of sarcasm. I think symbolism is mentioned one time too many already. Ty 02:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to remove expressionism too? Symbolism is one of the most important international movements in c19 art= There were several, rather dissimilar, groups of Symbolist painters and visual artists, among whom Gustave Moreau, Gustav Klimt, Odilon Redon, Pierre Puvis de Chavannes, Henri Fantin-Latour, Edvard Munch, Félicien Rops, and Jan Toorop were numbered. Symbolism in painting had an even larger geographical reach than Symbolism in poetry, reaching Mikhail Vrubel, Nicholas Roerich, Victor Borisov-Musatov, Martiros Saryan, Mikhail Nesterov, Leon Bakst in Russia, as well as Frida Kahlo in Mexico, Elihu Vedder, Remedios Varo, Morris Graves, David Chetlahe Paladin, and Elle Nicolai in the United States. Auguste Rodin is sometimes considered a Symbolist in sculpture. Research Method ( talk) 02:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
In the late 19th century there also were several, rather dissimilar, groups of Symbolist painters whose works resonated with younger artists of the 20th century, especially with the Fauvists and the Surrealists. Among them were Gustave Moreau, Odilon Redon, Pierre Puvis de Chavannes, Henri Fantin-Latour, Arnold Böcklin, Edvard Munch, Félicien Rops, and Jan Toorop, and Gustave Klimt amongst others including the Russian Symbolists like Mikhail Vrubel.... Modernist ( talk) 02:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This article contains lot of text which takes a partisan view, and presents controversial theories as accepted fact, without references and that needs to be removed. For example "The spell of Impressionism was felt throughout the world, and nowhere more profoundly than in the United States, where it became integral to the painting of American Impressionists such as Childe Hassam, John Twachtman, and Theodore Robinson. It also exerted influence on painters who were not primarily Impressionistic in theory, like the portrait and landscape painter John Singer Sargent." I have tried to do this, but my edits have been reversed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You say "The Hudson river school painters were important within their school, sure, but also within American culture and society,". That is not the same as saying "important in western painting". "The spell of Impressionism was felt throughout the world, and nowhere more profoundly than in the United States" means what exactly? Research Method ( talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Research Method ( talk) 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The "spell of etc" is just an example. The article is currently full of peacock and poetic terms. I would remove them, but I think it is necesscary to build a consensus to avoid edit wars. Research Method ( talk) 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please support your argument with some non-american sources that document the importance of c19 American Painting, and specifically the painters cited in the article in Western Painting. I think we all accept that Caspar David Fredrich is worth mentioning. Research Method ( talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
German Expressionism , Social realism, regionalism, American Scene painting, Symbolism
Is American Scene Painting, also known as Regionalism, as important as this heading implies?. Research Method ( talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I feel that "In the USA during the period between World War I and World War II painters tended to go to Europe for recognition." is a very strange way to start this article. Why begin this section by describing the situation of a relativey small group of painters, who failed to find significant recognition in Europe. Research Method ( talk) 00:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that the following section be heavily edited-
"In the USA during the period between World War I and World War II painters tended to go to Europe for recognition. Modernist artists like Marsden Hartley, Patrick Henry Bruce, Gerald Murphy and Stuart Davis, created reputations abroad. While Patrick Henry Bruce, created cubist related paintings in Europe, both Stuart Davis and Gerald Murphy made paintings that were early inspirations for American pop art and Marsden Hartley experimented with expressionism. During the 1920s photographer Alfred Stieglitz exhibited Georgia O'Keeffe, Arthur Dove, Alfred Henry Maurer, Charles Demuth, John Marin and other artists including European Masters Henri Matisse, Auguste Rodin, Henri Rousseau, Paul Cézanne, and Pablo Picasso, at his New York City gallery the 291. In Europe masters like Henri Matisse and Pierre Bonnard continued developing their narrative styles independent of any movement. "
It describes the reception of Western art in the USA including Rodin, not known as a painter. It has obviously been copied from somewhere else. Research Method ( talk) 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Modernist - 1 Arguments without arguments 1.1 Just a vote 2.1 I like it 6.5 Arguments to the person. Research Method ( talk) 02:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Achieve consensus first before removing large blocks of text... Modernist ( talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that most of the material on Abstract Expressionism is superflous, as it should be in its own article. It was an important movement, but does not need to be described twice at such length. Any Opinions? Research Method ( talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest rephrasing "In the United States the Romantic tradition of landscape painting was known as the Hudson River School: [3] exponents include Thomas Cole, Frederick Church, Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Moran, and John Frederick Kensett. Luminism was a movement in American landscape painting related to the Hudson River School. " as The Hudson River School in the United States followed the Romantic tradition of landscape painting: [4] exponents include: Thomas Cole, Frederick Church, Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Moran, and John Frederick Kensett. American Luminism was a movement in American landscape painting related to the Hudson River School."
Since there were other practitioner's of Romantic Landscape painting in the USA. Research Method ( talk) 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
(double edit conflict) Wikipedia policy applies to editing articles. See WP:BURDEN:
Per the above and WP:PEACOCK I can't see any justification for not changing "The 1940s in New York City heralded the triumph of American abstract expressionism", to "In the 1940's abstract expressionism developed in NYC."
Additionally the article at the moment is unbalanced. The Renaissance gets a fraction of the space of Abstract Expressionism, for example.
Ty 02:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Abstract Expressionism (and certain other schools) are currently covered at such length that this article would stretch to 1000's of pages if all movements of similar importance from the 2500 years and 40odd countries it covers were covered in similar depth. What is needed is a more concise summary to explain its position and role in the broad picture of western art and support the wikilink. I don't understand why detailed information needs to be duplicated here, under History of Painting, under Visual arts of the United States, and under Abstract Expressionism. I am not arguing that it should be removed, just shrunk. In addition the use of American to refer to the USA in a section that includes Mexican artists is confusing to this European Research Method ( talk) 03:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it clearly reveals your POV, that you discuss it here. Research Method ( talk) 03:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This page shows that there is a dispute over the Neutrality of this article. If you want to remove the tag, please explain why, don't just do it! Research Method ( talk) 23:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This spends most of the time talking about the c19 & c20. It should be rewritten to deal more with Classical Greece and Rome, and the development of Oil Paint. Research Method ( talk) 04:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"the history of Western painting represents a continuous, though disrupted, tradition from antiquity.[1] Until the mid 19th century it was primarily concerned with representational and Classical modes of production, after which time more modern, abstract and conceptual forms gained favor." this needs to be rewritten. I have tried to do so. Research Method ( talk) 04:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
You contradict yourself. It is an unsourced statement. Please provide some sources for it, as I disagree with it, since it spends too much time talking about c20 art. Research Method ( talk) 04:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Not just me - read the comments above on bias towards c20 art. Research Method ( talk) 04:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we talk about how to write this article:) Research Method ( talk) 04:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"The history of Western painting represents a continuous, though disrupted, tradition from antiquity.[1] Until the mid 19th century it was primarily concerned with representational and Classical modes of production, after which time more modern, abstract and conceptual forms gained favour." is how the article currently starts. I don't know what is meant by "representational and Classical modes of production,", although I imagine a Marxist source, and more than half the sentence talks about the last 150 years. Can't we improve it? Research Method ( talk) 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"Initially serving imperial, private, civic, and religious patronage, Western painting later found audiences in the aristocracy and the middle class. From the Middle Ages through the Renaissance painters worked for the church and a wealthy aristocracy. Beginning with the Baroque era artists received private commissions from a more educated and prosperous middle class. By the 19th century painters became liberated from the demands of their patronage to only depict scenes from religion, mythology, portraiture or history. The idea " art for art's sake" began to find expression in the work of painters like Francisco de Goya, John Constable, and J.M.W. Turner. The rise of the art gallery provided patronage in the 20th Century.
Western painting reached its zenith in Europe during the Renaissance, in conjunction with the refinement of drawing, use of perspective, ambitious architecture, tapestry, stained glass, sculpture, and the period before and after the advent of the printing press. [5] Following the depth of discovery and the complexity of innovations of the Renaissance the rich heritage of Western painting (from the Baroque to Contemporary art) continues into the 21st century." I have removed this section as it is unsourced, and unbalanced. It's too long too. Peas & Luv ( talk) 05:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not vandalism to remove unsupported POV sections to the talk page, following discussion. These sections are innaccurate - two examples -"by the 19th century painters became liberated from the demands of their patronage to only depict scenes from religion, mythology, portraiture or history"-they were paid to depict Erotic Scenes, Landscapes, Still Lives etc from Roman times. "Western painting reached its zenith in Europe during the Renaissance" what about Apelles, etc, etc. Peas & Luv ( talk) 06:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:V unreferenced material can be removed, but this should not be done unless there is a valid reason. RM, you have also removed text that is referenced. [9] There's a lot of opinions above, but no secondary sources to support assertions. That is the only way to keep material. Ty 06:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest, RM, that you post a suggestion for the lead section below, summarising the article, so that we can gain a consensus on it. Ty 07:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Please post a lead section below as you think it should be. Ty 07:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It is very good to add references, but I do not think this is an appropriate source [Discussion of the role of patrons in the Renaissance http://www.geocities.com/rr17bb/patronage.html retrieved November 11, 2008] Peas & Luv ( talk) 00:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this an appropriate source for the second sentence of an article about western painting - Aesthetics and Philosophy of Arts Explaining Modernism W. Stephen Croddy West Chester State University? Peas & Luv ( talk) 03:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that the references attached support this statement -"During the 19th century the rise of the commercial art gallery provided patronage in the 20th Century." Please correct this Peas & Luv ( talk) 05:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
A lot of dubious references have been added to the lead section. Can somebody revise them, as Modernist seems to have issues with me. Peas & Luv ( talk) 05:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
There is too much c20, esp post war, and not enough other stuff - see above. Peas & Luv ( talk) 03:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Wrong tag. Neutrality is not the issue; it's overall balance. I don't know what the tag is for that. Actually, what you're asking for is for the earlier sections to be expanded. Ty 07:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether the article should be renamed as "Modern western painting" or "20th century western painting", or that content split with the early sections left and a summary of the removed content. Ty 07:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support the second suggestion.
The article refers to Die Brücke et al in a separate section from German expressionism, referring to German expressionism as a 1920's phenomenon. How were Die Brücke and Der Blaue Reiter not part of German expressionism, as this seems to imply? The "German Expressionism, Social realism, regionalism, American Scene painting, Symbolism" is an odd jumble anyhow, but perhaps the term that we want is New Objectivity? That would seem to fit better with the Dix work in that section. Litho derm 17:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The image File:'The Robe Following Her - 4', oil on canvas painting by Jim Dine, 1984-5.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 23:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation [10]. Kat Walsh statement. [11]:
Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.
Since individual projects have differing community standards and there are potentially legal issues in different jurisdictions, individual projects may choose to be more restrictive than Foundation policy requires, such as the many projects that do not allow "fair use" media at all. However, no project may have content policies less restricive, or that allow licenses other than those allowed on Wikimedia Commons and limited fair use. Modernist ( talk) 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a C rating article due to lack of sourcing, pecock terms, and edit wars. I think it has also become an impossible wicket. I would like to wipe it and start from scratch but I am not a wiki mod. Insead I'm going to say 'I see whole sections without a single sitation. Fix it.'
I'm coming back in two days to delete EVERY PARAGRAPH without at least one citation in it. I will leave enough info to link to wiki pages holding the information, but I will delete all of the uncited non-linking sentences. Especially the 21st century part. 71.213.239.203 ( talk) 00:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Also reading through the page shows me you're all wonderfully skilled wiki lawyers. My but is cutting this down to size going to be 'fun'. Still whomever rated this B was sniffing glue or something. No citation, peacock words all over, and I think there are maybe three sentences with a neutral point of view in the whole article. You all want to ramble about how triumphant your school of art is. Shut up about your favorite school of art. *I* Don't CARE what YOU think of a school of art, I just want to know the technical details... I don't care about reception, that's purely subjective. 71.213.239.203 ( talk) 00:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
This article about western painting is filled with info about ancient Egypt and what not. I suggest a clean up and all info about non western painting is removed. 155.55.60.110 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC).
Edit by J Milburn concerning non-free images. [12] Over half the article is about the 20th century. This is disproportionate. 19th century has 20 images in galleries; 20th century has 130 images in galleries. 20th century should have about 20 images like 19th century. I suggest moving the 20th century content to 20th century Western painting, just retaining here a similar size to 19th century. There will then be a NFC problem in the new article, but it can be dealt with there, and the sections can then be expanded. Ty 12:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. --sparkit TALK 17:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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
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)
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)
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:
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
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)
The image Image:Nature Symbolized.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 01:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this article largely consist of unsupported assertions of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Please re-examine the article - whole sections lack any references, for example the middle ages. Research Method ( talk) 16:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, for the heads up..I will add references if possible..to that section... Modernist ( talk) 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Why are none of the talk page contributions supported by references? How can anyone know how much value an anonymous contributor's point of view has. Unless you want to declare your qualifications please reference your arguments. Otherwise it's like a playground argument - Yankee art is better than Froggy. Research Method ( talk) 01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
the following paragraph needs sources.
At the beginning of the 21st century Contemporary painting and Contemporary art in general continues in several contiguous modes, characterized by the idea of pluralism. The "crisis" in painting and current art and current art criticism today is brought about by pluralism. There is no consensus, nor need there be, as to a representative style of the age. There is an anything goes attitude that prevails; an "everything going on", and consequently "nothing going on" syndrome; this creates an aesthetic traffic jam with no firm and clear direction and with every lane on the artistic superhighway filled to capacity. Consequently magnificent and important works of art continue to be made albeit in a wide variety of styles and aesthetic temperaments, the marketplace being left to judge merit. << needs wayyyy more sources. 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.239.203 ( talk)
Is Of Minor Importance, and can be reached through romanticism. It has been given undue prominence. Research Method ( talk) 03:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do not give 3 references for seperate elements of one reference. Both your references support the arguement that the Hudson River School is of little interest to anyone outside the usa, and that it lacks popularity even there. Novack says:
" In Europe there is only one major collection of American nineteenth-century painting: that assembled by Hans Heinrich and Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza. Few European collections contain any nineteenth-century American art at all. In 2000, the Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza in Madrid launched the first-ever large-scale American landscape show in Europe, "Exploring Eden," to which the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, loaned Cole's 1842 "Voyage of Life" series. (An earlier version exists at the Munson-Williams-Proctor Arts Institute in Utica, New York, so its overseas journey was not as curatorially heart-stopping as that of "The Course of Empire.")" " "European scholars at large have been remarkably reluctant to admit American artists of this period into the pantheon of great landscape painters. In the wake of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, as Western nations join with the United States to confront global terrorism, "American Sublime" offers an excellent opportunity for the European nations to assimilate American art into the Western tradition." States of grace: Barbara Novak on "American Sublime" - The Vault Preview - Thomas Cole exhibit
Judith Hansen O'Toole says
"Founded by Thomas Cole (1801 - 1848), who, in 1818 at age seventeen, emigrated from England to a fresh, new America, the movement declined during the last decades of the nineteenth century when artists and their patrons became enamored of different aesthetic ideas and styles imported from Europe. "
"The purpose of American Scenery: Different Views in Hudson River School Painting is to revive the public's ability to appreciate nineteenth-century American landscape painting and to provide insight to the iconographical base that gives it greater meaning in order to more fully comprehend its achievement. Different Views in Hudson River School Painting by Judith Hansen O'Toole
I am not saying it has no significance in the USA, just that it is of minor importance to Western Painting.. Research Method ( talk) 12:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
CommentI disagree again - what they are saying is there needs a reevaluation and another understanding of the impact of HRS painting on the art of the 20th century. They are focusing on the movement; and its lack of historical support in European collections....and it should stay as it is in this article. Modernist ( talk) 12:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Then why does the Hudson River School matter more than he Boston School or the White Mountain School? And why should it be in Europe? Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese artists went to Paris too, but they are not included in this article.
Research Method ( talk) 13:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No! It is not suitable to be compared with Romanticism. Please read the references I have cited. This is an EDUCATIONAL project, nor a national one. Research Method ( talk) 13:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC) merged two threads Research Method ( talk) 13:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a seperate section for American painting, but some has been included in Europe. Should it be seperated? Research Method ( talk) 12:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
"Developments in modern art in Europe came to America from exhibitions in New York City such as the Armory Show in 1913. Previously American Artists had based the majority of their work on European Arts. " Visual arts of the United States
Should the section "painting in the Americas" be deleted then? I am not sure why it is included in Western Painting, and it has no text. Research Method ( talk) 02:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like "indigenous early painting " rather than Western Painting to me. Research Method ( talk) 02:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Who's saying what? Unsigned posts, bullet points when colons should be used to indent talk. How can anyone else follow this properly? See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout and Wikipedia:TP#Formatting. Ty 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
If there are still issues to be resolved and it would help to have the participation of other editors, I suggest starting a completely new section to summarises the points to address. Ty 10:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Is the Hudson bay School part of Western Painting? I argue that I've never heard of it. Research Method ( talk) 02:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"Cultural cross-pollination in the 19th century brought to us the “Paris School” of painting, with its commitment to realistic natural figures and strong traditional skills. This French academic style schooled many Americans and Europeans in fine art painting. Artists spilled out of Europe and Paris toward New York, across the sea and then across the landscapes they were so fond of capturing. These painters pursued their own artistic visions and shared them with students in Boston and New York, giving birth to the Hudson River School, the Boston School and New Hampshire’s White Mountain School.[ a look at the luminous, from Paris to Portsmouth by Rick Agran
Research Method ( talk) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The School of Paris <-- article can be accessed by a click.. Modernist ( talk) 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently this editor Research Method ( talk · contribs) is of the opinion that the Hudson River School should be removed from this article or at best does not belong where it is placed in the 19th century section. I would appreciate other editors opinions concerning the Hudson River School's placement in the article..In my opinion it is currently correctly placed.. Modernist ( talk) 03:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of Halloween, I hope that guy's user page doesn't look like that every day.... He states his agenda on his user page thus: "Seeking to remove united states art from western painting." Lithoderm ( talk) 03:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This distorts my argument which was that the Hudson Bay School was a minor offshoot of Romanticism, best placed in the United States Section of this article. Research Method ( talk) 06:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
c19 Russian Painting is far more important to western art that American Painting [1]. It gave rise to Malevich's Black Square of 1913. If you disagree with this statement, please explain why your unsupported view has more value than mine. Research Method ( talk) 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
How does that reference add anything to your argument? Lithoderm ( talk) 02:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, it's called the National Gallery of Art. And of course the Russian gallery is going to say that Russian art is far more important. Lithoderm ( talk) 04:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The Hudson River School is part of the Romantic Movement. This is stated in the current text -"In the United States the Romantic tradition of landscape painting was known as the Hudson River School". The fact that it doesn't end with "ism" is a hint that it doesn't belong there. Rather than stating that the Hudson River School IS important because you say so, provide some citations to back up your points of view. Currently the only reference cited for hudson river school leads to an article that says it is not important in western art, containing the text
"In the wake of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, as Western nations join with the United States to confront global terrorism, "American Sublime" offers an excellent opportunity for the European nations to assimilate American art into the Western tradition. [2]"
Which hardly butresses the case for its inclusion as a significant element of Western Art". I rather think this supports my argument. I understood that wikipedia was opposed to misleading citations, and ad hominem arguements, and I am sad to see my rational arguments criticised on the basis of my artistic expression on my user page. I would be interested to know what is strange about my argument. Research Method ( talk) 00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested to know what is strange about my referenced argument under Hudson River School above, and why my opponents are so shy of referencing their points of view. Research Method ( talk) 01:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Research Method ( talk) 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I added Symbolism to the heading. I added it, but Modernist has removed it. Is there a consensus on this? Research Method ( talk) 02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
We only have symbolism mentioned in two headings so far:
I'm sure one more wouldn't harm. OK, end of sarcasm. I think symbolism is mentioned one time too many already. Ty 02:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to remove expressionism too? Symbolism is one of the most important international movements in c19 art= There were several, rather dissimilar, groups of Symbolist painters and visual artists, among whom Gustave Moreau, Gustav Klimt, Odilon Redon, Pierre Puvis de Chavannes, Henri Fantin-Latour, Edvard Munch, Félicien Rops, and Jan Toorop were numbered. Symbolism in painting had an even larger geographical reach than Symbolism in poetry, reaching Mikhail Vrubel, Nicholas Roerich, Victor Borisov-Musatov, Martiros Saryan, Mikhail Nesterov, Leon Bakst in Russia, as well as Frida Kahlo in Mexico, Elihu Vedder, Remedios Varo, Morris Graves, David Chetlahe Paladin, and Elle Nicolai in the United States. Auguste Rodin is sometimes considered a Symbolist in sculpture. Research Method ( talk) 02:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
In the late 19th century there also were several, rather dissimilar, groups of Symbolist painters whose works resonated with younger artists of the 20th century, especially with the Fauvists and the Surrealists. Among them were Gustave Moreau, Odilon Redon, Pierre Puvis de Chavannes, Henri Fantin-Latour, Arnold Böcklin, Edvard Munch, Félicien Rops, and Jan Toorop, and Gustave Klimt amongst others including the Russian Symbolists like Mikhail Vrubel.... Modernist ( talk) 02:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This article contains lot of text which takes a partisan view, and presents controversial theories as accepted fact, without references and that needs to be removed. For example "The spell of Impressionism was felt throughout the world, and nowhere more profoundly than in the United States, where it became integral to the painting of American Impressionists such as Childe Hassam, John Twachtman, and Theodore Robinson. It also exerted influence on painters who were not primarily Impressionistic in theory, like the portrait and landscape painter John Singer Sargent." I have tried to do this, but my edits have been reversed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You say "The Hudson river school painters were important within their school, sure, but also within American culture and society,". That is not the same as saying "important in western painting". "The spell of Impressionism was felt throughout the world, and nowhere more profoundly than in the United States" means what exactly? Research Method ( talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Research Method ( talk) 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The "spell of etc" is just an example. The article is currently full of peacock and poetic terms. I would remove them, but I think it is necesscary to build a consensus to avoid edit wars. Research Method ( talk) 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please support your argument with some non-american sources that document the importance of c19 American Painting, and specifically the painters cited in the article in Western Painting. I think we all accept that Caspar David Fredrich is worth mentioning. Research Method ( talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
German Expressionism , Social realism, regionalism, American Scene painting, Symbolism
Is American Scene Painting, also known as Regionalism, as important as this heading implies?. Research Method ( talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I feel that "In the USA during the period between World War I and World War II painters tended to go to Europe for recognition." is a very strange way to start this article. Why begin this section by describing the situation of a relativey small group of painters, who failed to find significant recognition in Europe. Research Method ( talk) 00:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that the following section be heavily edited-
"In the USA during the period between World War I and World War II painters tended to go to Europe for recognition. Modernist artists like Marsden Hartley, Patrick Henry Bruce, Gerald Murphy and Stuart Davis, created reputations abroad. While Patrick Henry Bruce, created cubist related paintings in Europe, both Stuart Davis and Gerald Murphy made paintings that were early inspirations for American pop art and Marsden Hartley experimented with expressionism. During the 1920s photographer Alfred Stieglitz exhibited Georgia O'Keeffe, Arthur Dove, Alfred Henry Maurer, Charles Demuth, John Marin and other artists including European Masters Henri Matisse, Auguste Rodin, Henri Rousseau, Paul Cézanne, and Pablo Picasso, at his New York City gallery the 291. In Europe masters like Henri Matisse and Pierre Bonnard continued developing their narrative styles independent of any movement. "
It describes the reception of Western art in the USA including Rodin, not known as a painter. It has obviously been copied from somewhere else. Research Method ( talk) 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Modernist - 1 Arguments without arguments 1.1 Just a vote 2.1 I like it 6.5 Arguments to the person. Research Method ( talk) 02:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Achieve consensus first before removing large blocks of text... Modernist ( talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that most of the material on Abstract Expressionism is superflous, as it should be in its own article. It was an important movement, but does not need to be described twice at such length. Any Opinions? Research Method ( talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest rephrasing "In the United States the Romantic tradition of landscape painting was known as the Hudson River School: [3] exponents include Thomas Cole, Frederick Church, Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Moran, and John Frederick Kensett. Luminism was a movement in American landscape painting related to the Hudson River School. " as The Hudson River School in the United States followed the Romantic tradition of landscape painting: [4] exponents include: Thomas Cole, Frederick Church, Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Moran, and John Frederick Kensett. American Luminism was a movement in American landscape painting related to the Hudson River School."
Since there were other practitioner's of Romantic Landscape painting in the USA. Research Method ( talk) 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
(double edit conflict) Wikipedia policy applies to editing articles. See WP:BURDEN:
Per the above and WP:PEACOCK I can't see any justification for not changing "The 1940s in New York City heralded the triumph of American abstract expressionism", to "In the 1940's abstract expressionism developed in NYC."
Additionally the article at the moment is unbalanced. The Renaissance gets a fraction of the space of Abstract Expressionism, for example.
Ty 02:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Abstract Expressionism (and certain other schools) are currently covered at such length that this article would stretch to 1000's of pages if all movements of similar importance from the 2500 years and 40odd countries it covers were covered in similar depth. What is needed is a more concise summary to explain its position and role in the broad picture of western art and support the wikilink. I don't understand why detailed information needs to be duplicated here, under History of Painting, under Visual arts of the United States, and under Abstract Expressionism. I am not arguing that it should be removed, just shrunk. In addition the use of American to refer to the USA in a section that includes Mexican artists is confusing to this European Research Method ( talk) 03:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it clearly reveals your POV, that you discuss it here. Research Method ( talk) 03:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This page shows that there is a dispute over the Neutrality of this article. If you want to remove the tag, please explain why, don't just do it! Research Method ( talk) 23:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This spends most of the time talking about the c19 & c20. It should be rewritten to deal more with Classical Greece and Rome, and the development of Oil Paint. Research Method ( talk) 04:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"the history of Western painting represents a continuous, though disrupted, tradition from antiquity.[1] Until the mid 19th century it was primarily concerned with representational and Classical modes of production, after which time more modern, abstract and conceptual forms gained favor." this needs to be rewritten. I have tried to do so. Research Method ( talk) 04:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
You contradict yourself. It is an unsourced statement. Please provide some sources for it, as I disagree with it, since it spends too much time talking about c20 art. Research Method ( talk) 04:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Not just me - read the comments above on bias towards c20 art. Research Method ( talk) 04:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we talk about how to write this article:) Research Method ( talk) 04:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"The history of Western painting represents a continuous, though disrupted, tradition from antiquity.[1] Until the mid 19th century it was primarily concerned with representational and Classical modes of production, after which time more modern, abstract and conceptual forms gained favour." is how the article currently starts. I don't know what is meant by "representational and Classical modes of production,", although I imagine a Marxist source, and more than half the sentence talks about the last 150 years. Can't we improve it? Research Method ( talk) 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"Initially serving imperial, private, civic, and religious patronage, Western painting later found audiences in the aristocracy and the middle class. From the Middle Ages through the Renaissance painters worked for the church and a wealthy aristocracy. Beginning with the Baroque era artists received private commissions from a more educated and prosperous middle class. By the 19th century painters became liberated from the demands of their patronage to only depict scenes from religion, mythology, portraiture or history. The idea " art for art's sake" began to find expression in the work of painters like Francisco de Goya, John Constable, and J.M.W. Turner. The rise of the art gallery provided patronage in the 20th Century.
Western painting reached its zenith in Europe during the Renaissance, in conjunction with the refinement of drawing, use of perspective, ambitious architecture, tapestry, stained glass, sculpture, and the period before and after the advent of the printing press. [5] Following the depth of discovery and the complexity of innovations of the Renaissance the rich heritage of Western painting (from the Baroque to Contemporary art) continues into the 21st century." I have removed this section as it is unsourced, and unbalanced. It's too long too. Peas & Luv ( talk) 05:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not vandalism to remove unsupported POV sections to the talk page, following discussion. These sections are innaccurate - two examples -"by the 19th century painters became liberated from the demands of their patronage to only depict scenes from religion, mythology, portraiture or history"-they were paid to depict Erotic Scenes, Landscapes, Still Lives etc from Roman times. "Western painting reached its zenith in Europe during the Renaissance" what about Apelles, etc, etc. Peas & Luv ( talk) 06:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:V unreferenced material can be removed, but this should not be done unless there is a valid reason. RM, you have also removed text that is referenced. [9] There's a lot of opinions above, but no secondary sources to support assertions. That is the only way to keep material. Ty 06:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest, RM, that you post a suggestion for the lead section below, summarising the article, so that we can gain a consensus on it. Ty 07:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Please post a lead section below as you think it should be. Ty 07:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It is very good to add references, but I do not think this is an appropriate source [Discussion of the role of patrons in the Renaissance http://www.geocities.com/rr17bb/patronage.html retrieved November 11, 2008] Peas & Luv ( talk) 00:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this an appropriate source for the second sentence of an article about western painting - Aesthetics and Philosophy of Arts Explaining Modernism W. Stephen Croddy West Chester State University? Peas & Luv ( talk) 03:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that the references attached support this statement -"During the 19th century the rise of the commercial art gallery provided patronage in the 20th Century." Please correct this Peas & Luv ( talk) 05:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
A lot of dubious references have been added to the lead section. Can somebody revise them, as Modernist seems to have issues with me. Peas & Luv ( talk) 05:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
There is too much c20, esp post war, and not enough other stuff - see above. Peas & Luv ( talk) 03:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Wrong tag. Neutrality is not the issue; it's overall balance. I don't know what the tag is for that. Actually, what you're asking for is for the earlier sections to be expanded. Ty 07:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether the article should be renamed as "Modern western painting" or "20th century western painting", or that content split with the early sections left and a summary of the removed content. Ty 07:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support the second suggestion.
The article refers to Die Brücke et al in a separate section from German expressionism, referring to German expressionism as a 1920's phenomenon. How were Die Brücke and Der Blaue Reiter not part of German expressionism, as this seems to imply? The "German Expressionism, Social realism, regionalism, American Scene painting, Symbolism" is an odd jumble anyhow, but perhaps the term that we want is New Objectivity? That would seem to fit better with the Dix work in that section. Litho derm 17:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The image File:'The Robe Following Her - 4', oil on canvas painting by Jim Dine, 1984-5.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 23:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation [10]. Kat Walsh statement. [11]:
Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.
Since individual projects have differing community standards and there are potentially legal issues in different jurisdictions, individual projects may choose to be more restrictive than Foundation policy requires, such as the many projects that do not allow "fair use" media at all. However, no project may have content policies less restricive, or that allow licenses other than those allowed on Wikimedia Commons and limited fair use. Modernist ( talk) 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a C rating article due to lack of sourcing, pecock terms, and edit wars. I think it has also become an impossible wicket. I would like to wipe it and start from scratch but I am not a wiki mod. Insead I'm going to say 'I see whole sections without a single sitation. Fix it.'
I'm coming back in two days to delete EVERY PARAGRAPH without at least one citation in it. I will leave enough info to link to wiki pages holding the information, but I will delete all of the uncited non-linking sentences. Especially the 21st century part. 71.213.239.203 ( talk) 00:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Also reading through the page shows me you're all wonderfully skilled wiki lawyers. My but is cutting this down to size going to be 'fun'. Still whomever rated this B was sniffing glue or something. No citation, peacock words all over, and I think there are maybe three sentences with a neutral point of view in the whole article. You all want to ramble about how triumphant your school of art is. Shut up about your favorite school of art. *I* Don't CARE what YOU think of a school of art, I just want to know the technical details... I don't care about reception, that's purely subjective. 71.213.239.203 ( talk) 00:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
This article about western painting is filled with info about ancient Egypt and what not. I suggest a clean up and all info about non western painting is removed. 155.55.60.110 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC).
Edit by J Milburn concerning non-free images. [12] Over half the article is about the 20th century. This is disproportionate. 19th century has 20 images in galleries; 20th century has 130 images in galleries. 20th century should have about 20 images like 19th century. I suggest moving the 20th century content to 20th century Western painting, just retaining here a similar size to 19th century. There will then be a NFC problem in the new article, but it can be dealt with there, and the sections can then be expanded. Ty 12:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)