User talk:Modernist/Archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ellsworth Kelly[edit]

We're were wondering how long it would take until an art snob to change the article. What a wonderful exercise for my Graffiti Art class...the digital documentation of my Neo-Graffiti will do wonders...especially with someone threatening to block my IP with the username 'Modernist'. We will come in waves...and we have all the articles that you helped create.

Happy editing :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.64.140 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thankspam[edit]

RfA[edit]

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanticism[edit]

When you have a moment, can you take a look at Wetman's edits to the Romanticism article? I am not yet willing to revert him, because some of it seems correct. However, the following statement he added to the opening looks like an opinion:

The Romantic might as equally consider himself leading the vanguard of Modernity, as shunning Modernity altogether.

What are your thoughts? And, what about his alteration of all the century formatting from [[19th century]] to nineteenth century? He changed every instance throughout the article. I would like the opinion of someone with a lot of experience with this article, like yourself, before I revert any of his changes. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, and I agree with you. Thanks, as well, for the comment regarding the Surrealism article. Much appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~Eliz81(C) 21:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-)[edit]

Notability of Paul Brach[edit]

A tag has been placed on Paul Brach requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up, although I started the article like - 2 minutes ago. Paul Brach was the founding dean of Cal Arts one of the most famous and prestigious art programs in the United States. I will add references soon. Modernist (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Thanks for the kind words. freshacconcispeaktome 18:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inuse[edit]

Check out the templates at Template:Inuse for use at the top of articles you're working on to avert speedies and edit conflicts. Tyrenius 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I could've used this the other day. I'll keep it handy. Modernist 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed! Tyrenius 03:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizing[edit]

Before you go reverting a bunch of my edits, have you bothered to read the Manual of Style regarding Image sizing? Wikipedia's guidelines for images state:

The following general guidelines should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise:
  • Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not recommended: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers), and a maximum of 300px

Thanks, Cacophony (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? These are paintings that need to be seen. Lets discuss this with the other Visual Arts editors here - [1] at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Modernist 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Monet[edit]

Ta. The template, I presume you mean. Tyrenius (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template and the links to the series paintings and to the article about Camille. Modernist (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in the Template:Impressionists or lack of it is always open to review. A point against inclusion is that Monet's painting then appears on the pages of all the other artists. For the first time ever I altered my preferences for thumbs to come up at 300px. They looked very impressive. The trouble is that where there was a forced image size, say 250px. When default thumb renders images at 180px, the 250px images look big. When you set preferences at 300px, the 250px images still render at the forced size and then look small. I found this frustrating, and therefore another reason to stick to default thumb, unless a good reason to the contrary in specific cases. Tyrenius (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've experimented with 300px as my thumb preference and it is ok for thumbs but little else. I prefer the 180px preference if for no other reason than that most users are using 180px. If we design and write articles, I think we should keep most users in mind. Modernist (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I keep my settings on the default. Tyrenius (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, really bad haikus from a new admin[edit]

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Modernist, those are beautiful images on your user page. The images in my card are a bit of a mixed bag as you'll see and my haikus ... well let's just say they're not high poetry.

Anyway, thanks so much for supporting my RfA. --A. B. (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONDRIAN IN LONDON

For memories of Piet Mondrian in London from/by Charles Harrison, Winifred Nicholson, Barbara Hepworth, Miriam Gabo, Herbert Read, Ben Nicholson, Naum Gabo see http://www.snap-dragon.com/mondrian_in_london.htm

This is actually a hlepful link to scholars who wish to learn about Mondrian's time in London, of which little is known, althought "Modernist" believes otherwise. This info has been on this site for months, plus if we wish to be pedantic about links, etc. I will report all the images you have to DACS, ARS, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.218.157 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



78.49.10.36 insisting on grey on Piet Mondrian[edit]

I've removed your report of 78.49.10.36 for vandalism from WP:AIV as this doesn't appear to be vandalism, but instead is a content dispute. Can I suggest that rather than merely reverting 78.49.10.36's edits you engage in discussion on the article's talkpage and attempt to reach consensus? I am copying this to both Modernist's and 78.49.10.36's talkpages; the subsequent part is intended for 78.49.10.36. Please do not repeat the incivility you showed here and in other edits such as here. Civility is one of the key Wikipedia principles; please remember this. Comment on the content, not the editor. Apart from this, presumably you have reliable sources for your assertion that Mondrian used grey; I'm sure Modernist would be interested to see these. Tonywalton Talk 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps out of context, but Broadway Boogie-Woogie clearly contains grey. Perhaps 78.49.10.36 has a point? Tonywalton Talk 00:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I posted the above before I saw your reply) - Certainly the issue of civility needs to be addressed, and any more responses like those will not be viewed kindly. Hopefully you and 78... can discuss this collegiately now! As an aside I was in Amersfoort for a week once on business, but I was too *&(&@(**^ busy to be able to visit the Mondrian museum. Damn! Tonywalton Talk 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, then. Recast the opening paragraphs so that the statement isn't a dogmatic "he used x, y, z" to something like (and you'll be better at this than me, I'm sure) "in his earlier abstract work he used a restricted palette of primary colours such as x, y, z. Later, particularly after escaping to New York at the start of WWII he...". You get the drift. Perhaps you and 78 could work it out? Me? I know nothing about art but I know what I like ☺ Tonywalton Talk 00:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I se the "grey" edit has been reverted again (not by you) with a comment to see the talkpage. Perhaps the second paragraph Piet Mondrian#Paris 1919–1938 needs work as well, then (again, reading this out of context). One final thing before I stop bothering you; WP:WQA is a good place to take instances of incivility. Regards Tonywalton Talk 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I'll check it out. Modernist (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style[edit]

Comment would be useful here. Tyrenius (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added my .02 cents. Modernist (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]

Thank you for your kind words. Although my involvement has not been as deep or substantive as yours, I have enjoyed contributing. Maybe I will return soon--goodness knows that editing is a terribly obsessive pursuit, and it is near impossible to stay away--but I am tired of it right now. Best wishes and carry on with the good work, JNW (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kindness too, but I know that weary feeling, take a break, rejoin us when you are ready. Stay well, Modernist (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except for a couple of days around Christmas, I have not taken that break after all....someday. My compliments on all the fine work recently to articles of the impressionist and post-impressionist type, especially Monet, who had been very skimpy for far too long. Cheers, JNW (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to take some time away, and it's hard to paint and continue writing sometimes. As I mentioned you are a very valuable editor. Thanks for your kind words. Modernist (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair Lewis[edit]

The book is online - you might take the time to see that indeed the quote does not appear in the book. Tedickey (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll read it. Modernist (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting link here:[2] Modernist (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I saw that, but aside from the newsclip at the end, it was the same as the Snopes discussion. Tedickey (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist, I was wondering why you added a link to Lewis' novel "It Can't Happen Here" to the See also section when it is already included in the bibliography? Jrs044 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm underscoring an important story to read. Modernist (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays[edit]

All the best to you too - keep up the good work! Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Thanks for kind comments on the Picasso template. Tyrenius (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still-life with Geranium 1910?[edit]

Hi, I left a comment regarding the year of the painting at Talk:Still-Life with Geranium. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Life with Geraniums seems to be the correct name. Article moved. Redirect deleted to avoid confusion with other similarly named paintings which also exist including by Matisse. Tyrenius (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work and thank you to both AxelBoldt (talk) and Tyrenius (talk Modernist (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. I never realised geraniums were so big in early 20th century art! Tyrenius (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Impressionism[edit]

Hi, would it not be wise to discuss alterations to important pages like Post-Impressionism with other editors, before altering such pages? At present, we have many pictures on this page, others and more could be easily supplied - but would this improve this page? There we have a lack of detailed information to classify something! While everybody seems to be invited to post his private opinion via an image which (almost by definition) is open to more than one interpretation. Therefore, please think about the definite content you supply, and keep in mind: WP is considered to be more than a coffeetable-book. Illustrations are fine, as long as they illuminate the content - but there is absolutely no reason to include them just because they are at hand. - rpd (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the images I added are appropriate. The image that you eliminated - (was where the Pissarro now is when I found the article). I agree with that image being eliminated, that Russian artist seemed to practice a form of Impressionism and he was born after the Nabis. I also have serious doubts about the Henri Rousseau being in the lead or even in the article. Add text, - By the way I placed the Pissarro next to the text that I added that mentioned his foray into Post-Impressionism from the mid-1880s through the early 1890s and I see that you moved that text. Hmmm - for someone only editing since Dec 22, 2007, you certainly have a well developed sense of WP. Modernist (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had problems to lock in, as I lost my password. So I created a new one, and hope to merge both user pages soon. For our PI-discussion I think it would be appropriate to continue on the PI-Talkpage. --rpd (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave my remarks at the PI talk page for you. Yes, you didn't sound like a newbie. I hope you can merge with your older account. I've seen some other users around who have. Modernist (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius adviced me how to proceed, and so I did. I think you will find my advice on Post-Impressionism. --rpd (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3[edit]

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Abstract Artists[edit]

New article FYI. Tyrenius (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and verifiability.[edit]

Re your 2008-01-14t20:43:09z edit with a summary "rvv" where you reverted my 2 previous edits. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for what vandalism on Wikiedia means. My two edits stated information from the reference [3]. After you reverted it it had him discussing painting with "Lee Krasner, Jackson Pollock", which is not mentioned in the source for that sentence. It also mentions the "New York School", which is not mentioned in the source for that sentence. It also mentions "The Club, a regular meeting place of modern artists working in and around Tenth Street in New York", which is not mentioned in the source for that sentence. Your revert wasn't of vandalism, it was of information that the sentence's source said. After your revert the sentence contradicted its source.

Your next edit used Wikipedia's New York School as a reference. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, you need to source information from reliable sources as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability - one of Wikipedia's 3 most important policies (the other 2 being Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). This edit also put back my mention of "the Eighth Street Club" which you'd just before called vandalism. Your summary had "see talk page before removing any more content!" - please read Wikipedia:Verifiability which states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The burden lies with editors adding information - unsourced and challenged information can be removed by anyone.

Your last edit left the following unsourced and previously challenged with a [citation needed] tag:

It also left the following unsourced and previously removed information:

  • "a regular meeting place of modern artists working in and around Tenth Street" which was followed by the UKY reference which doesn't mention any of this - hence its deletion.
  • Cedar Tavern piped as the Cedar Bar (which doesn't mention Goldberg, but should have been referenced with a reliable inline source int he Goldberg article anyway).

In summary: don't revert edits that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, don't then call them vandalism, and don't put back unsourced information once it's been removed unless you provide a source. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-15t10:07z

Good referencing. I've consolidated 2 refs that were the same[4].
If you want you can also use the citation templates at CAT:CITE which allows future display changes to automatically be used for all cites using the template.
Since several bits of info is referenced to the Herskovic and Sandler refs, you can create general references for them in the References section itself, and then do inline references with e.g. <ref>Sandler 1978, pp. 29-45</ref> and these can even be reused if the same pages reference something else by using the name="" parameter. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-16t11:55z
  • I noticed your input - and thanks for you help there Jeandré, using those templates isn't my long suit... I appreciated your consolidating the Sandler references. Thanks Modernist (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

Hello Modernist, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, I'll use it as best that I can. Appreciated. Modernist (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Good luck. :) Acalamari 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ab-Ex images[edit]

Dear intrepid Modernist: Hi. It's nice to have an excuse to correspond with you again. I need your input. I recently posted on the ab-ex talk page my objections to the inclusion of three of the gallery images, not on grounds that the paintings are bad or unimportant, but on the grounds that they are not examples of abstract expressionism (though there may be other paintings by the same artists which are ab-ex). What do you think? I'm watching both this page and the ab-ex talk page, so I'll see your reply promptly wherever you may leave it. Thanks! MdArtLover (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the Adolph Gottlieb is fine, it's an early example - a "pictograph," as he refered to them of his early Abstract expressionism that evolved into his "Bursts" which are better known. Admittedly the Gorky portrait of de Kooning is early and figurative, but it clearly relates to the work of John D. Graham (the mentor of Gorky, de Kooning and Pollock) and to de Koonings early figurative paintings that were influenced by Gorky and Graham. It presages the abstractions that were to come. I wish we had a later Gorky to work with as a replacement. The Louis Schanker poses a problem for me, it is too Cubist, too derivative, and a minor work by a minor artist. It probably should be deleted. I placed it chronologically, but I have reservations. If you - my old friend want to delete it I would offer no objection. Keep in mind though that both Pollock and de Kooning made important figurative work during the all important early 1950s. Modernist (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the fact that a work is figurative. An absence of figuration is only one of a set of traits which tend to predominate in abstract expressionism. De Kooning's paintings of women show the other tendencies of the movement so strongly - the savage application of paint, the emphasis on the physical quality of paint itself, the anti-orderliness, the "all-over" look of spontaneous painterly action, the large scale, the exuberant untidiness, the quality of the elemental that makes them almost seem works of nature, the mystical irrationality, the refusal to "compose" the picture or to help the viewer decide where to look, the absence of any sense of "drawing" that underlies the painted image, etc.- that it's easy to place them within abstract expressionism. In my opinion, none of these three really suits, but certainly the Schanker qualifies least as an example abstract expressionism. I really hate deleting things, so I'm going to have to think about this for a while longer before taking such a drastic step. MdArtLover (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like your description of de Kooning, but Gorky never really relinquished his tender side, even in his most sophisticated and abstract works between 1944 and 1948. His color is always clear, his surfaces considered and subtle, even when they are dripped and loose, his use of composition, line and shapes - measured and enormously effective, set him apart from his rougher and as you describe more violent contemporaries like - de Kooning, Pollock and Kline. Gottlieb was on the other hand more like Rothko, Still, Newman, Reinhardt and Motherwell the more cerebral types, more about Color field painting then about action painting. The Gottlieb that is seen is a good example of his pictographs (rooted in mythology), and primitive painting, and like Rothko's more surrealist paintings of the late 1940s they are his early abstract expressionism. More about the Schanker I can't say. I'd say put the painting into his article, but it is already there. This morning I was talking with one of my students about how Franz Kline made small drawings before several of his most powerful and seemingly most spontaneous and violent looking paintings. Sometimes abstract expressionism isn't really abstract expressionism. :) Modernist (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rothko and Kline do not contradict what I'm saying. I'm saying that there must be a preponderance of the core traits of ab-ex in a work for it to qualify as an example. De Kooning's women, though they lack the absence of figuration predominant in ab-ex, still have a preponderance of the other traits. In the same way, Rothko's quieter canvases have a preponderance of the core traits of ab-ex, including: the emphasis on the physical quality of paint itself, the large scale, the quality of the elemental that makes them almost seem works of nature, the mystical irrationality, the refusal to "compose" the picture or to help the viewer decide where to look, the absence of any sense of "drawing" that underlies the painted image, etc. The fact that his paintings (usually) lack any obvious exuberance or violence or impetuosity and are instead brooding and depressive is not enough to disqualify them. Ditto Kline's works which in some cases may have been preceded by small-scale drawings: this is a difference in procedure that is notable, yet far from disqualifying, since the final work is visibly dominated by the core an-ex concerns and characteristics. The Schanker painting simply doesn't qualify. MdArtLover (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While we are in complete agreement that the Schanker does not qualify, (and I'd appreciate your deleting it), I suspect that we disagree about the assesment of Gottlieb and his early Pictographs. I see refined and quiet qualities in those pictures, that mine a vein of primitive imagery; elogy's to religiosity, tragedy and memory; new and radical for the time; also seen in Newman's work of the 1940s and Rothko of the 1940s. Eventually Gottlieb developed a full range of emotional expression and an articulated use of color in his Bursts. Modernist (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To my eyes, the Gottlieb does have a sort of "tachiste," tactile, primitive quality, a quasi-Gutai celebration of material fragility, that at least relates in some way to ab-ex. The Gorky, however, is an echo of Picasso that is not at all ab-ex, as I understand it. I totally hate deleting things, so I'm still just going to stew for a while. MdArtLover (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a great story about the surrealist artist/dealer Julien Levy seeing Gorky's work for the first time - some early paintings that appeared to him to be derivative of Miro and Picasso. He asked Gorky about that and Gorky replied: When I paint like Miro, I am Miro! and when I paint like Picasso, I am Picasso! To which, Levy replied: Well, when you paint like Gorky, call me. Modernist (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's so true it's almost not funny. That Gorky painting is certainly derivative, but of course, that's not my concern. A painting can be derivative, yet also be clearly an example of abstract expressionism. Conversely, a painting can be highly original, yet not at all an example of abstract expressionism. For example, David Hockney's sun-saturated paintings of Los Angeles socialites and swimming pools are both highly original and absolutely not abstract expressionist. MdArtLover (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the inclusion of the Gorky highly misleading as a visual presentation of Ab Ex, and its only relevance to the movement is within Gorky's work as showing the initial signs of his later development. Surely a mature Gorky fits the bill. This painting sits much better as a derivation of Picasso's classical period. There are other dubious inclusions, e.g. Alexander Calder whose article doesn't even mention Ab Ex. I suggest copying all this to Talk:Abstract expressionism and holding discussions there. Tyrenius (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Modernist (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use[edit]

Just an info note. Take Image:Matisse518.jpg. Bottom of page shows 3 articles it's used in. Each article has to have a separate fair use rationale on the image page. Each FU rationale must link to the specific article. See Image:Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg for an example. Tyrenius (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T, WP:FUR is getting complicated, but thank you for the heads up. If there are images that you come across that need work please let me know. Thanks - Modernist (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to check any images on pages you are editing. A common cause for possible deletion is just that the FU rationale doesn't have a link to the relevant article - even though there will be an automatic link at the bottom of the image page anyway. Tyrenius (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly adding separate FU rationales to articles I've worked on in the past as well. Thanks again, - Modernist (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson River School[edit]

You shouldn't be reverting valid edits, especially without any explanation. So far you've done it twice. The passage has legitimate problems, which either have to be corrected for it to stay in some form, or if it cannot, left out entirely. 69.230.120.39 (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Impressionism[edit]

May you please have a look on the talk-page, before you continue? Thank you,--rpd (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Modernist (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa[edit]

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorky and ab-ex[edit]

Heads up, Modernist. You'd better rewrite the Wikipedia article on Arshile Gorky. It appears to have been written by contributors who were not "real people". The article clearly situates Gorky as a crucial influence on abstract expressionism, and only in the mature works — not the quintessential, emblematic abstract expressionist tout simple that you and the Real People hold him to be:

"... The painterly spontaneity of mature works like "The Liver is the Cock's Comb," "The Betrothal II," and "One Year the Milkweed" immediately prefigured Abstract expressionism, and leaders in the New York School have acknowledged Gorky's considerable influence. But his oeuvre is a phenomenal achievement in its own right, synthesizing Surrealism and the sensuous color and painterliness of the School of Paris with his own highly personal formal vocabulary."

And the Gorky image used in the ab-ex article doesn't even show the relevant prefiguration. The image does not belong — just a non-cubist Picasso painting would not belong as the only image of a Picasso work in an article about cubism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylandArtLover (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, do you really think it's appropriate to delete part of a discussion which is already in the archive? --rpd (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because he was a little overwraught when he wrote that. But let it be. Modernist (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like infoboxes[edit]

By the way, the rating at Caspar David Friedrich was arbitrary and not even intended to be a rating - I was just tagging the article with a Visual Arts project tag, trying to get as many visual arts articles tagged in a short time, I wasn't thinking about A,or B, or start, but gosh it only got a start - man oh man....golly, because there are a whole lot of Visual Arts articles being checked over by other forces at wp, and in the long run Johnbod suggested that we tag em and then rate em high, but oh my God you actually rated it too, wow that must have been hard for you.....after all, It's too bad you ride that HIGH horse and r so caught up in your own trip, give me a fkn break...those va templates were partially motivated by this[5] Modernist (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ve been thinking about this as I am caught in the middle of two friends, but I'm fairly sure its NOT worth carrying gruges about; ye have both worked well together before and recently. Modernist, we reverted each other a few times on the article - no problem, it happens - but since they are few enough VA editors about lets not get upset about this. By the way did you see this; I dont think its fair myself, but goes to show we should work together and not get caught up in internal detail. Ceoil sláinte 01:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I have a very good JSTOR article on Moore that Whiskeydog sent me, if you want me to mail it to you. I cant figure out how to make attachments to the mailuser function, so drop me a line and I'll send it back. Ceoil sláinte 01:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, my friend I agree the issue is closed; I'd much rather work together than carry on. My feelings about our activities here I cannot adequately express in words - I came here a little over two years ago and I am so proud of the Visual Arts project and the work we have all done - it is astounding...We have changed the world...and we are still moving forward. The criticism of tedium, boredom has as much to do with the guy writing the article as the article.....make no mistake Ceoil we are doing an incredible job...as you said a while back it's just gonna take a few lifetimes. My only worry about the Henry Moore article is we need to primarily showcase the sculpture. I defended Alex's infoboxes partly because Ty and Johnbod and I discussed them a few months back and they seem to lend a certain consistency that people like that reviewer understand, even if they don't understand. I'll drop you a line in about an hour, you can send the article and I'll be happy to read it thanks...Modernist (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I glad at that; we have so many hours hard work together it would be a mess to let it fall over an infobox. I think you should think carefully about what you think the Moore article lacks yet, post it to the far and we'll see what we can do. If your not comfortable pasing it as it is; by all means say, and we can addresss. Later. Ceoil sláinte 02:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Modernist. I have opinions, and because I like Wikipedia (in some ways) like you do, I have recently been expressing them more, because I'm concerned. You are making me out to me some kind of elitist, which is unfair. Clearly you don't like my style, but I don't think you should get so mad at me because you aren't able to defend many of your own edits. You just said up above that the edit was arbitrary. Can you not see why that's a problem? Anyway, you don't have to answer that, but you've upset me as much as I appear to have upset you. Whiskeydog (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know your work well enough to know that you do valuable work. It was never my intention to undervalue either your accomplishments here or your ability..Sometimes its hard to differentiate between the forest and the trees. As I mentioned above I did not intentionally make that edit to downgrade your work because I do respect the effort you both made on that article...As to defending my edits - as I mentioned above - you've placed the B rating, that's the point, I want people to do that on the articles that they have developed; because other projects will do that for us..if we don't do it ourselves...Modernist (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Modernist, I sent you that mail finally; but my mail client is acting a bit weird these days, so let me know if there was no attachment and I'll get somebody else to send the article. Would you mind archiveing this thread by the way; its resolved, your self an Whiskeydog have worked well togeter more than a few times before, there are no hard feelings now; we should just forget it and move on. Thanks........ Ceoil sláinte 13:25, 28 September 2008

Contemporary fine art[edit]

Hello Modernist. I am a beginner here, but have high education in fine arts and contemporary culture. I have noticed your interventions on almost all the pages that interest me too, and they were always full of knowledge, balanced and intelligent. I am writing to ask if I can contact you when I doubt some informations and believe that they should be deleted, or when I have some suggestions that I cannot apply yet. Best regards Artethical (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple opening images are unnecessary and contrary to Wikipedia's manual of style.[edit]

Please explain why you keep placing two images at the heading of the Unicorn article. Angel the Techrat (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although there actually is only one image in the lead now, I left a response on the article talk page. It's not a big deal. Modernist (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bauhaus[edit]

The "context" paragraph is unacceptable as it stands. Its statements about what happened in both Russia and Germany are grossly politically biased. The stuff about "imperialism and militarism" is a political opinion. The statement that "workers and soldiers soviets" seized power in Russia is a political opinion. (Actually the Bolshevik Party seized power.) More importantly, there is no relationship shown between these events and the founding of Bauhaus. Was Bauhaus founded in response to the Russian revolution? Was it run by workers and soldiers soviets? Was Gropius a communist? No, no and no. So what was the connection? If you want to retain this paragraph, it must be fixed. If not, I will delete it again. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave your remarks on the article talk page. I would suggest that you - rewrite the paragraph. I'm moving these remarks there. Thank you. Modernist (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Women artists[edit]

Hi Modernist. If you are interested, you might want to lend a hand to the '21st century' section, as well. Cheers, JNW (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a look. Modernist (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I confess I tend to think of Ryder as 19th century, but have no trouble thinking of Klimt, who died only a year later, as 20th century. Ryder's romantic mysticism was for so long out of favor, and maybe the awful condition and darkening of his work makes him seem more like an old master. Take care, JNW (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was always struck by Pollock's comment that Ryder was the American painter that interested him the most. Made me see his forms as ultra-modernist, ahead of his time, the mystical forerunner of Rothko and Still, a little like the abstractions of Augustus Vincent Tack. Modernist (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, his forms are extremely abstracted, as if the only thing that mattered for him was conveying an emotional truth through evocative shape. I read that he was once asked whether his paintings were meant to portray day or night, and he said he'd never thought about it. The 20th century artist with whom I see the closest connection is Marsden Hartley, who early on was very influenced by Ryder. I think they met. JNW (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I see now that you added that very information on their meeting to Hartley's bio. Well done. JNW (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Hartley idolized Ryder, followed him around for a while. One of my favorite early modernists, - under appreciated. Modernist (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber-terrorism[edit]

Hi Modernist. Is there any specific reason why you reverted the work I had done on this subject ? Maybe you know someone who will do the cleanup so the article is understandable worldwide. Lars 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I saw you put there was illegible. Revert my edit if you think you improved the article. Your edits verge on vandalism....I did it for you. Modernist (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla's RfA[edit]

Paul Klee[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus of old (talk • contribs) 01:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly deleted the statement. You Icarus of old (talk placed it, Stop this nonsense. Modernist (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, dyslexia. I thought I was getting rid of the absurd statement as well. I'm sorry for any confusion. Thanks for being judicious in your edits, and have a wonderful day. Icarus of old (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract art[edit]

20:09, 18 February 2008 Modernist (Talk | contribs) m (6,467 bytes) (Reverted edits by Sardanaphalus (talk) to last version by SieBot)

Pourquoi? For one thing, the article is once again categorized as a template... Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed all the language links disappeared with your edit. As you say Pourquoi? Am I missing something? Modernist (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Tyrenius (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty - TY :)Modernist (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto! Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art[edit]

Hi Modernist. Your thoughts re: the current editing disagreement at Art would be appreciated. Thanks, 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)JNW (talk)

Someone reverted the edits, I left a comment. Modernist (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New mailing list[edit]

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll give it some thought. Modernist (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2008

can you look at Rothko[edit]

Hi modernist, can you look at the change in Rothko page from: 02:33, 25 February 2008 24.47.208.127 (Talk) (58,755 bytes) (→Suicide: added external link to Marlborough Gallery (Marlborough Fine Art)) (undo)-------is this the place for a link to this gallery site? I don't know yet how to think on such matters--will you have a look? Contemplating21 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link, considering the scandal I don't see why the article should be linked to Marlborough. Good catch..Modernist (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of painting[edit]

I just added some Mayan paintings. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was able to add a couple of pics each for the Teotihuacan site and the Aztecs, most of the Central American paintings are from the Mayas; I'm guessing, with this slant in representation from Wikimedia Commons, that the Mayas had a much more extensive mural tradition than their neighbors, predecessors, and successors. I could be wholly incorrect, though. In any case, I've used what was most available.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Maya additions are great. I will continue to search for other imagery as well. Thanks, - Modernist (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Denis, Les Nabis, Jules Lefebvre‎, Agnes Martin[edit]

Thanks for the excellent assists and sharpenings. You do an immense amount of work on wiki, and as a grateful user I wanted to express my appreciation. Fenbaud (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, its nice to be appreciated. Do your best and you'll be fine. Modernist (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited![edit]

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 1/13/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Aintsemic.[edit]

What, if any, are your thoughts on this fellow? I have, quite frankly, grown tired of his penchant for adding links to "Asemic writing" to every article he thinks it is somehow relevant. It seems that his whole purpose for being on Wikipedia is to promote this so-called avant-garde movement. I intend to put a stop to this. First, I am going to put the asemic writing article up for AfD. After that, it will be much easier to justify reverting his edits because I will have shown the movement to be nonnotable. Have you any thoughts on the matter? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like WP:OR and I usually revert when I run across him on an inappropriate page like Surrealism. Give AfD a try. Modernist (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably do so tomorrow, since a snow storm is supposed to bury me anyway. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a valid subject (not necessarily "movement") where refs could be found.[6] More a case of cleaning up the article, I would have thought. Ty 05:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term itself is a neologism invented by Tim Gaze of Adelaide, Australia, who created the asemic.com webpage. My suspicion (unproven, obviously) is that he is also Aintsemic, who, as I said above, seems to be on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of spreading word about asemic writing. The phenomenon of non-semantic "writing" is very real, and very old, but the term is a very recent neologism, and, as for the "movement," it is an utter figment. Neologism, plus no references, plus conflict-of-interest (Aintsemic has 8 c-o-i reports) adds up to a highly questionable article, at least to my mind. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The starting point is 17,200 google results.[7] This is a large number. It appears in some credible, even if arcane, places:

The Rustle of Language - Google Books Result by Roland Barthes - 1989 - Language Arts & Disciplines ... finds no textual contour; the code is simply interrupted: an asemic word is created, a pure signifier; for example, instead of writing "officer," I ...[8]

Dissemination - Google Books Result by Jacques Derrida - 2004 - Philosophy ... the complication according to which the supplementary mark of the blank (the asemic spacing) applies itself to the set of white things (the full semic ...[9]

Derrida and Religion: Other Testaments - Google Books Result by Yvonne Sherwood, Kevin Hart - 2005 - Religion - 424 pages ... a purely physical text from which all trace of meaning (the logos) has been removed, in which no meaning could ever appear — an asemic text. ...[10]

Joseph G. Kronick - Philosophy as Autobiography: The Confessions ...As an excess that belongs to any semic entity, the fold folds back, creasing the blank or virgin sheet, to use Mallarmé's metaphors for asemic presence. ...[11] (The Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Milton S. Eisenhower Library)

The Philosophical Imaginary - Google Books Result by Michele Le Doeuff - 2002 - Philosophy - 335 pages
Conversely, the polysemic—asemic trait which we have been observing betrays the fact that the text is not directly receivable in its intended univocity. ...[12]

Premises: Essays on Philosophy and Literature from Kant to Celan - Google Books Result by Werner Hamacher - 1999 - Philosophy - 408 pages
... of the asemic, ...[13]

Untwisting the Serpent: Modernism in Music, Literature, and Other Arts - Google Books Result by Daniel Albright - 2000 - Philosophy - 410 pages A gestus always struggles to retain its efficacy, its pointedness, its incision, against a general asemic blur, a confusion that tends to swallow up all ...[14]

asemic calligraphy, apparently WSB's - William S. Burroughs papers, Ohio State University.[15]

JSTOR: Sartre et la mise en signe... verbal acrobatics which superficially characterize the best of our modern poetry (witness Maurice Roche's playful 'asemic stereog- raphy,' for example).[16]

The last example is a 1983 publication, so it is not a "recent neologism". The article is not about the "movement" but about the type of creativity described by the term, which, as in the examples above, is verifiable.

There is a relevant text from the Newsletter of the Library, School of Art, Media and Design, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK: Over from Argentina, Mirtha Dermisache will be showing a selection of works published since the beginning of the seventies, (see dbqp visualising poetics, http://dbqp.blogspot.com/2005/02/importance-of-documental-structure-to.html - Mirtha Dermisache and asemic writing) and an installation in bookartbookshop that combines a publishing process (printing, edition and sale) with a conceptual intervention. The first of these interventions took place in Buenos Aires in 2004, the second in Paris. We are extremely honoured to be the third context for her work.[17] The blog it references is by Geof Huth.[18]

Ty 07:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Seems notable after all. Actually I looked into this briefly a few months ago - maybe a year ago - its hard to keep track of time, and it still doesn't resonate with me as Surrealism or Concrete Poetry, although it is a type of automatic writing of a kind, like Cy Twombly more or less, I don't think of Bill Burroughs as a Surrealist either, for that matter. Sort of writing in tongues.  :) thanks - Ty - Modernist (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for the research, Tyrenius. Clearly, I was under a misapprehension as to the article and the topic. What this seems to emphasize, though, is how poorly the article was written, and how little effort has been made to improve it. Rather than adding "asemic writing" to other articles where it is not appropriate, Aintsemic could have been improving the article itself. It does seem clear, though, that there is no basis for the claim of a 21st century avant-garde movement. Therefore, as I work on the article---which is clearly not eligible for AfD---I will be removing that section. Thanks again, for the work [User:Tyrenius|Ty]]. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Romanticism.[edit]

Do you have any opinion on the placement of the etymology of romance/romantic in the lede of the Romanticism article? The information might be of importance, but I think it could be put down a little further, not adding unnecessary length to the lede. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you make some changes there, I'll take a look...Modernist (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Sometime in the next day or two. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix to the columns in the see also section. I was not at all satisfied with the job I'd done, but was simply too tired to keep fighting with it. I knew I was going about it in the wrong way, but was buggered if I could figure out the right way. At any rate, I thank you. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems okay now. Modernist (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velázquez[edit]

Hey Modernist, thanks for all your help with Friedrich, it was great to see your edits. If you have the time and energy, can you take a look at Venus; I'm hoping to push it to FAC in the next two weeks. Best, Ceoil (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riana's request for bureaucratship[edit]

Dear Modernist, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA - Discospinster[edit]

Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster talk 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magritte[edit]

Hiya. Just wondering why you reverted my edits for Rene Magritte. Blackjanedavey (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I think your infobox was really good, I'd like to see a lead image, and I was a little uneasy about the gallery being five wide. I added the infobox again with a lead image. Thanks, Modernist (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery Neo-Impressionism[edit]

I see you have again forced a specific size for gallery. This may work well on your desktop, but definitely not on all. Therefore, please reconsider that a default setting may allow a better effect on the screens of other collaborators. All the best, --rpd (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page - the gallery was altered because of your erroneous edits. I've changed it back now thanks to my changes. Perhaps you should be more careful in the future. Modernist (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Tyrenius#Response. Ty 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venus[edit]

Was promoted last night. Thanks for all your input and insight, and hope to work with you again. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to you also, thanks...Modernist (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I apologise for troubles caused by my edits, and be assured I appreciate your contributions: You are doing a brillant job, to my opinion. As far as I see, a set of technical problems was involved, too. For the time to come, I offer you my hand, my criticism (nobody is perfect) and my experience.--rpd (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tremendous respect for you too. I'm aware of the experienced and valuable work you've done here. Apology accepted, and please accept mine to you. I lost it a little yesterday. Modernist (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten, and buried. Let's cooperate - tell me if you need support, information, or anything else: I am prepared to help as far as I can,--rpd (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'd be happy to work with you, and not against you, and vice versa. Lets do our best. Modernist (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate images[edit]


Apologies if my edits are off the mark, as I am new to editing wikipedia, I saw that action painting and Japanese pop art both lacked images. May I ask what makes certain images "inappropriate"? The images used are by anonymous artists and are released under a share alike license from a a non profit anonymous arts organization. Where appropriate, I would think that those would be better than using thumbnails of copyrighted art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenbabyhead (talk • contribs) 05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images need to be notable, and verifiable as fitting the article it is added to. A pop art image should be a notable work of pop art by a notable pop artist. Modernist (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - Could you please have a short look ?[edit]

Hello Modernist, could you help me please? I had a problem with NPOV on the article Christiaan Tonnis.
I tried my best and think it isn't brilliant now, but OK.
I also asked Tyrenius. Could you please have a short look too?
Are there too many quotation marks in it? Or should the ref numbers (without using quotation marks) be enough?
Thank you very much!
Blaise Mann (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Modernist, thank you very much for your fast help and encouraging words -
I will do as you said for a further improvement :-)
Thank you again, best wishes! Blaise Mann (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modernism references[edit]

I have a question about one of the references you added: is Art & Auction a magazine? I have never heard of it, but I was a little confused by the formatting of the reference, and did not want to make any changes until I checked with you. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its becomming a very popular and interesting publication, very much about contemporary art as it happens now, the market, the newest and latest etc. The cites concerned the retirement of Robert Pincus Witten who coined the phrase Postminimalism in the 1960s. I'd prefer a better source but the article was at hand at the time. Thanks..Modernist (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aahhh... definitely something I should look into. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend it..Modernist (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How long has it been in print? I am quite certain I've not seen it. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read all about Art & Auction, LTB Media and the enterprises of Louise MacBain. Ty 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ty, Modernist (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Prentice[edit]

Hi, thanks for reverting my linking to David Prentice from Monochrome painting, Lyrical Abstraction and Park Place Gallery. I hadn't realised there was another artist with the same name. I was in the process of creating a stub for the American David Prentice to avoid any repeat of this confusion (and so that the English one could have a dab link at the top), but then I got cold feet about whether I'd got the right guy this time round either.

This guy [19] [20] is called David Prentice and is certainly American, but from the gallery page on his website [21] his work doesn't appear particularly monochrome or lyrically abstract.

If this isn't the right David Prentice either, then I'm struggling to find any mention of a third one anywhere on the web. Any suggestions? JimmyGuano (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the David Prentice (b. 1943) who is currently doing landscape paintings and is the artist whose website you linked [22] is the same David Prentice who during the 1960s showed his Monochromatic abstract paintings at Park Place Gallery, and who was considered a Lyrical Abstractionist painter during the late 1960s. During the mid 1980s he gave up abstraction for landscape painting and he moved to Japan, part of the time. He's American and travels between New York and Japan. I hope this helps.Modernist (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - I'll go ahead and create the new article. It's eerie how similar the the two David Prentices' careers are - the English one also started off painting abstracts in the 60s, and now paints more representational landscapes. Makes me feel a bit less daft for confusing them. JimmyGuano (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During the 1960s he became known for his monochromatic white paintings, and in group exhibitions on his bio in 1972 he had a 2-man show in LA with his white paintings and Ad Reinhardt's black paintings. His 1960s abstractions were like the backgrounds in his paintings Flock III, and Smile, (on his website). Modernist (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Steuart Curry[edit]

The revert you performed on John Steuart Curry reverted to an article containing information copy/pastd from a WP: article. That revert has been reverted. Happy editing! I do not respond on other's talk pages, only on mine --Atyndall93 (talk | contribs) 12:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARE YOU KIDDING-look at the article, I reverted it again to the version by Bongwarrior. The article has been seriously vandalized by the editor you reverted my correction to....Modernist (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the top and bottom of this you'll see that the author put "Subject's popular name (birthdate – death) can be a lead-in to the subject's real, formal, or extended name. Describe the subject's nationality and profession(s) in which the subject is most notable. Provide a description of the subject's major contributions in the immediately relevant field(s) of notable expertise." at the top and other WP: page content at the bottom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atyndall (talk • contribs) 12:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article, Modernist (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

joining a project[edit]

hi modernist is there a procedure to join the "Category:WikiProject Visual arts participants"? or does one join by adding the category in the userpage Talk? many thanksArtethical (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you. I try to put the templete but don't know how. please give me a hand on that. so many thanks.Artethical (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some bits... Ty 00:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Can you have a look at the Frida Kahlo page, I separated between references and biblioArtethical (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the reason[edit]

the reason was that there is a new person, who only visited this page, and he seems to be interested, perhaps against, i do not figure this out. I followed to his page and saw that he is doing only this page. This is one of the pages that i watch regularly because I look at certain artists and at contemporary women artists that are followed by either Kraus or Pollock regularly. I do not think that this matters, but it looked like a beginning of soething strange. maybe I am wrong. I will continue to watch this page. Thanks.Artethical (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok, keep an eye out, if you need help there let me know..Modernist (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I will keep an eye. But I also want to say something more. Look for example at our young male british artists, for example: "Damien Hirst (born June 7, 1965) is an English artist and the most prominent of the group that has been dubbed "Young British Artists" (or YBAs). Hirst dominated the art scene in Britain during the 1990s and is internationally renowned. Now, you see, nobody wants to take the words "most prominent" "internationaly renowned" even "dominated". And the word renowen or major is quite regular with most of the important contemporary artists pages. I am not sure that we should take these words out from some women artists who reached major standard, and leave it with others. perhaps you can consider it again? I am going to check on some other contemporary artists' pages to get the feelingArtethical (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Greenberg is described as influential and he was, Hirst these days is prominent to say the least, I'd describe someone like Louise Bourgeois or Louise Nevelson, or Alice Neel as leading, or well known or prominent. Major is a term I'd use in describing a school of art or someone like Jackson Pollock, a major abstract expressionist or Pablo Picasso a major force in Cubism. Modernist (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just to share with you, I looked at the sites of Pollock and Picasso, and then, of Bourgois and Nevelson. I was surprised, I was so sad to see how little we have, relatively, on these great women artists. For the moment. Artethical (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually across the board, both men and women artists, old and new that need intelligent and accurate and more complete work..do your best. Modernist (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for encouraging me. That's why I try to keep an eye at least on those sites that I care about and which are well done, or are on their way to become very serious source, adding more information from my research. As you see, I try, I continueArtethical (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:PEACOCK. Ty 01:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Marsh etc.[edit]

Apropos your comment on the Reginald Marsh talk page, I'd noticed this recent activity too, and my impression--based on the home-cooked, choppy writing style evident in the expanded John French Sloan article--is that we may be looking at the results of a class project. The mid-term timing is suggestive. Let's hope these welcome expansions pass the copyvio test. The uneven writing style in the Arthur Dove edits does have the feel of scattered patches of lifted prose set into otherwise self-written material, may need careful vetting--I haven't taken a good look at the others yet. Ewulp (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Third of May 1808[edit]

Hi Modernist, I have begun expansion of Goya's Third of May, in hopes that you and some of the other all-stars might be interested in turning it into featured article material over the next few weeks. I have used few sources, so there is much work to be done. It only occurred to me in the last week that May 3 will be the 200th anniversary of the event, so it would be great if this could be the FA for the day. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it my best, It's always fun to work with the group, thanks...Modernist (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have a patalogical fear of leads, do you want to have a go at expanding this? I think the article is sufficently developed now that it can be summarised. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I can add to improve what looks terrific, I'll try. Modernist (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually two sentences per section is sufficent. Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes that can be daunting. You are doing very well - although I do enjoy the process, and how it comes together. Modernist (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Satisfying isn't it, seeing the article develop through the different stages. I was off-line for most of last week, and it was great to return after 5 days and see how much work had been done, and how far the page had developed. That said, I'd really like to see it nomed within a week, so we have a shot at main page for 03 may. More or less I think its there re content, but it has structural issues (understandable when content is being added by a number of people) and it needs a full copyedit. Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about Goya is that he really is such a modernist painter, maybe thats where it really starts, although Rembrandt and El Greco figure in there too. But The Maja and the Naked Maja, the Third of May, and the etchings are sooooo outrageously unique, defiant and prescient. He's like a combination of Velazquez, Manet and Courbet with a demonic spin. I'll do some copyediting for now. Modernist (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to refocus on Friedirch as the next collobartion, but after that I have loosely talked to JNW about Seurat's Bathers (also covered by Clark), and would very much like to tackle the Monia Lisa (with Amanda). Do you have favourites to suggest? Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Friedrich is getting done, the Seurat is cool, Mona Lisa doesn't really turn me on but it's important I would love to do Guernica, and Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, but Manet's Olympia and its initial rejection by the Louvre and the conservative salon and powers that be has really always interested me, and the Caillebotte bequest is an interesting one, although the Monet late Water Lilies, that languished unappreciated for thirty years would also be interesting. Modernist (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha; if only human life span was 190 years! So much to cover...Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is what jumps out at me, and when you mentioned Monet, I thought of Turner's sea scapes; god, so many choices. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK with the group we can do it all. Although Picasso images are proving to be tough to work with because of copyrights and estate issues. Olympia, maybe or late Monet - what a story. Modernist (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Modernist, I'm going to tackle The Garden of Earthly Delights first, any help would be appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

I hope that makes sense.[23] Ty 11:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Creeft ref doesn't work. Ty 12:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Ty 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Davis[edit]

Do you have a source for Ronald Davis living in Taos? If so, please add it to his article and then restore him to the Taos page. I've removed him because there's nothing on his article (sourced or unsourced) that says anything about Taos at all. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing it up for me. The closest I've been to New Mexico is Minneola, Kansas, so I have virtually no knowledge of the state personally, and I didn't remember about AH (if I'd known it before). Since I do a lot of editing, I didn't read the article: I simply ran a search, and when it found no instances of "Taos", I concluded that it didn't mention it. Thanks again! Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem..Modernist (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guernica after Rubens...[edit]

Hi modernist, I am not trying to be annoying and I am not Familiar with how to, and this is not personnel research, it is hidden facts. Please either tell me exactly what to do, or research the facts yourself so that you can add this IMPORTANT information to the Guernica page. thank you. Rubensrevenge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubensrevenge (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, it is not nonsense. I tried to put a reference in but I didn't do it right. First of all look at the two paintings. Second read the book "Picasso's Guernica After Ruben's Horrors of War" by Alice Tankard. Also see if you can find the pre-drawings for Guernica. If you actually take the time to do this, you might take me more seriously. Or you can continue to let the page misrepresent the painting.Rubensrevenge (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not how important you personally think it is or isn't, the point is that on a page dedicated to Guernica, don't you think it should say what inspired the composition and characters... Why would you block me for desiring referenced material anyway? Rubensrevenge (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post here again...WP:DFTT Modernist (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Modernist, I was brought here because of a thread at The Editor Assistance Board. I've pointed out a source and explained a better way for Rubensrevenge to phrase the information he's looking to add. Please take a look at the thread and the source. Additionally, I remember reading similar information about Picasso using Rubens' painting as a reference in an old issue of Art Journal magazine. I'll try to dig it out of my library and give the reference on the talk page. In any event, I agree that this editor has some of his facts wrong, but I think there is some truth to the underlying information and we should work with this editor to include it. Do you agree?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just placed a big run down of sources on the Guernica's talk page. I agree that the editor dropped the ball on several counts, but I think there's some information that can be salvaged from this. Let me know your thoughts.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just glanced at the diffs for the reverts and like I said, there was some missing the mark as far as when "inspiration" meant in this instance.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets all stop feeding the trolls. Modernist (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Freedoms[edit]

I am not sure if Norman Rockwell is within your bailiwick, but I have recently created Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell), Freedom of Speech (painting), Freedom to Worship (painting) and Freedom from Want (painting). Feel free to come by and contribute.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look..Thanks Tony...Modernist (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say that I don't have much to add there, and the referencing style is beyond me..Modernist (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Portuguese article[edit]

Hello, Modernist. I'm with a doubt and I thought that you perhaps could help me. I'm working in the translation of an article from the Portuguese Wikipedia about the pt:Museu de Arte Contemporânea da Universidade de São Paulo. I'm not sure about what are the rules for translating the title of the article. Unlike the Museu de Arte de São Paulo, which has always had an alternative English name in foreign exhibitions, it seems that there's no historical use of English names for this museum. Even so, I have found some titles for the museum such as "Museum of Contemporary Art of the University of São Paulo", in a page hosted in the institution's official website. But it sounded really ackward to me. What do you believe would the best thing to do in this case, mantain the original Portuguese name or use this (or other) translation? Thanks. Dornicke (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dornicke (talk), I think for now the best idea is to use Museum of Contemporary Art, University of São Paulo, although the original Portuguese name is ok too. I think the translated English version is fine, and will be more easily grasped here. I hope that helps. Modernist (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does seems to be a good name to be used here. Thanks. Dornicke (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to warnings to User:213.250.60.124[edit]

Hi Modernist. I realize that this edit was well intentioned, but adding tags to articles is not vandalism and your edit was really biting a new user. Could I ask you to be a little more careful in your use of warnings. Thanks, Gwernol 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you know he/she really should not tag any articles at this stage of the game. And to repeatedly do it after gentle warnings....not cool. However if you are on it I'll back off..Modernist (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quick note, delete as desired.[edit]

Modernist, just to save you some time, don't bother banning the previous IP, or this one for that matter, the ISP I use has more of them than you could shake a ban-stick at, if I leave, it will be of *My* own choice and volition, not because someone who doesn't know diddly about a religion's article tries to ban me.

Regards, Anonymous poster for mary baker eddy "article" (not a "wikipedian", thereby cannot be held to the 3RR policy.) 172.192.57.37 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Your note made me laugh, and given my recent experiences in academia, anything to smile about is a blessing. Cheers, JNW (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well somehow we gotta find a way to laugh once in a while... Modernist (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile[edit]

Hi Modernist, why should I remove the, now correct, link? Greetings--GerardusS (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goya II[edit]

As we all have Goya books to hand, I reckon we could put together Saturn Devouring His Son fairly easily. Interested? Ceoil (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to resist, I'll give it a shot...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monet[edit]

Hi Modernist: I think these copyedits [24] were made in good faith, and attempted to address what currently reads like a confusing chronology. I'm thinking of having a go at the 'Later life', but would like to consult with you first. Great work on May 3rd. JNW (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. Considering the scope of contributions made under your user name, I am convinced that you employ an office of educated art historians, each devoted to a different specialty of the visual arts. More soon. Cheers, JNW (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The shouting is over[edit]

The Barnstar of High Culture
For all you work in bring The Third of May 1808‎ to where it is. T'was an honour to work with you, Sir/Madam. Ceoil (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank spam[edit]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.
Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.
Thank you again, VanTucky

The Third of May 1808 (II)[edit]

Great news! My contribution was miniscule but you, JNW, Johnbod, Ceoil & the others made the outcome inevitable. Well deserved all around. Ewulp (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Condratulations yourself. More please! Ceoil (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Third of May 1808[edit]

Thank you, Modernist, for all of your contributions to The 3rd, which were instrumental in getting the piece to FA status. If it reaches the main page next weekend, I would like all the contributing editors to meet in a pub to celebrate. Barring that, since I gather that some live in Ireland, some in Australia, some in England, and some in the U.S., a virtual toast will be in order. Cheers, JNW (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JNW, in the clothing he wears while editing.
I'll be there...by the way who's your tailor? Modernist (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But of course, [25]. JNW (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An evening for celebration! Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract art[edit]

I'm wondering if we need to go to RfC on this? This is quickly going to turn into a revert war and judging from the talk page comments, the editor(s) may not be willing to be civil. I'm busy this morning (it's 8:35 a.m. my time), but I will work on this later today. I will first straighten out the talk page comments, since the editor(s) in question seem to be plunking their comments anywhere. Second, I'll mention at an RfC on the talk page and at the VisArts Project talk page and see if others agree, or if we can handle this "in-house" amongst the art editors. freshacconcispeaktome 12:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I sent the IP a welcome and I'll stay tuned.Modernist (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of Earthly Delights[edit]

Thank you for the extensive copy edit. Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its coming together...you've done a great job there also..Modernist (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have gotten our posse! Do you think the Flood should link to Deluge (mythology) or Noah's Ark? The latter is an FA. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I like Great Flood goes to Deluge (mythology) rather than Noah's Ark partially because Noah's Ark is contained in the Deluge, and Noah's Ark is so much about the two by two, although the morality tale is apropos, so maybe we should work in both if the opportunity presents itself..my first choice is the Deluge.. Modernist (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was my first choice as well. I justed asked Outriggr about other sections that could be added[26], not that thoes there at the moment are complete. Any ideas? Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you think of putting "sources and context" before "Triptych". It seems more logical to me to establish context before describing the content. Ceoil (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract expressionism[edit]

Modernist, you wrote: I'm really not interested in an edit war - so I will assume good faith, but, why delete sculpture from Abstract expressionism? David Smith, Noguchi, Nevelson and even Di Suvero are well documented as being a crucial part of Abstract expressionism - read Irving Sandler, and the article is about an era not only about painting. The Gorky painting that you deleted as you probably know has been disputed before, and in lieu of a more recent image has been agreed upon to remain...However perhaps inadvertantly your last edit wiped out nearly half of the entire article. Including all the references, categories, see also links etc. I've restored it. Please discuss removals on the talk page, thank you...Modernist (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If David Smith, Noguchi, Nevelson and Di Suvero are Abstract Expressionists, there is not a word to justify their work, or any other sculpture, being in the article. If you disagree with the deletion of the images, put them back....but I would rather something was added to the article (with supporting refs) first.
I am not familiar with prior disputes over the Gorky painting...or agreements about leaving it. (Although he may have been an Abstract Expressionist, that particular painting does not meet any definition of "abstract" that I am familiar with.) Sorry about deleting any refs and links, that was unintentional. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the sculptors you listed are considered Abstract Expressionists; but, in my view, probably the most truly Abstract Expressionist sculptor was Peter Voulkos, because clay and the firing process allowed their characteristic work process.
Once again, I regret any anguish I caused you by my deletions to the article -- both the intentional and the unintentional ones. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done, Malcolm, keep up your good work.Modernist (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chagall[edit]

Why did you revert the edits to the page discussing the windows at the Union Church of Pocatino Hills? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.177.90.3 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I was mistaken and your edits have been restored..Modernist (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulpian (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Freedoms[edit]

May I request your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Four_Freedoms_.28Norman_Rockwell.29.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Please come see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Four_Freedoms_.28Norman_Rockwell.29_part_2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sherwin[edit]

Hi. I've been working on a bio about Brian Sherwin. Can you give me some feedback about this bio? My plan is to contribute bios for other art bloggers/writers of note like Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene once I finish with the Sherwin bio. This is my first major contribution to wikipedia so any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry but it doesn't seem worthwhile..although I made a comment here: [27]Modernist (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Betsy Ross, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excuse ME? What edit are you talking about? The one I fixed? Claypole - Claypoole? Seems correct according to several earlier versions. Surely you should check your computer..Modernist (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I was reporting this vandalism by another editor and accidentally posted the warning to you. Sorry for the confusion! - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, Modernist (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of avant-garde artists[edit]

When or if you have a moment, I would appreciate your opinion over there, as I am apparently not making any headway with an anon who is convinced that avant-garde and experimental are two separate and unrelated things. He seems to feel a musician, etc., is either one or the other. What do you think? Thanks for your time, as always. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of musical events[edit]

In this article only one incident is mentioned for each year. On what basis one incident is being singled out? There may be some more equally significant events. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Modernist/Archive2&oldid=1166679646"