Talk:Russell Drysdale

Untitled

OK, this is generally some very nice work; it's a shame that we're unlikely to get any pictures to illustrate it for another 60 years...

Some comments:

• As a stylistic point, if you can work the quotations into the article itself to make the points you want to make, that would possibly be better. If the quotations don't illustrate a point, maybe they would be better placed at Wikiquote instead.
• The "assessment" section needs to be written in such a way as to comply with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. It would be better to attribute assessments to specific people or groups of people; for instance, what has Robert Hughes had to say on Drysdale? What about other significant art critics and historians?
• More references are always good. I added a link to a 1999 Drysdale exhibition at the NGV, but if you know of any biographies they would be a most useful addition.

But overall this is very good work. Thank you!--Robert Merkel 02:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. I'll revise the article in light of your comments. For an illustration, I'd like to get a photo of Drysdale - do you have any idea if this will be possible? And is it not possible to get a jpg of a painting when so many are already in the hands of public galleries, and therefore presumably in the public domain?

I think you might be able to put a picture up that you take yourself of a painting (if the gallery allows photography), but most of the images on the web would be copyrighted Cfitzart 03:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it seems like the prevailing view on using low-res reproductions of copyrighted artwork on Wikipedia has changed. Have a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Notably, under US copyright law (which is really what we are concerned with given that the Wikipedia is hosted in the US), fair use applies if you upload reduced-quality images for the purposes of criticism of the specific artwork, the artists, or a genre of art. Using a low-res image of a Drysdale on an article which contains critical commentary about Drysdale would seem to qualify to me. A secondary question is whether such images can be downloaded from art gallery websites and used for this purpose: the short answer to this is nobody's really sure, but there are court rulings to suggest that there's no separate copyright in a photograph exclusively of an artwork, particularly a two-dimensional artwork. So we might be able to get an image from the NGV website and use it to illustrate our Drysdale article. --Robert Merkel 05:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that putting up a low res shot would be acceptable, but the question is where you get the image from - the NGV site says that No image or documentation displayed on this site may be reproduced, communicated or copied (other than for the purposes of research or study; criticism or review, or reporting the news) without the Gallery’s permission. [1] It would probably be better to go to an art gallery (somewhere which allows photography - the AGNSW or NGA, but not the NGV) and take a photo ourselves, eg the one in the Blue poles article. Cfitzart 11:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Galleries routinely claim far more rights under copyright than they're actually clearly entitled to. As far as the law is concerned, there's considerable doubt that separate copyright subsists in a photograph that is a faithful reproduction of a 2-d artwork. See Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation, the only on-point decision in the English-speaking world. It supports the view that there is no separate copyright subsisting in photos of paintings. There is an interesting thread on the topic on the wikien-l mailing list in August 2004. --Robert Merkel 04:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Isnt that case going the other way round, trying to claim copyright on a photo of something which is public domain, rather than what were wanting to do.. make fair use a photo of something which is copyright? Anyway I think that the {{Non-free 2D art}} template was created just for this.. and it would be ok to load 200 pixel size photos for articles which is larger than a standard thumb size anyway, as I've just done with Image:Nolan painting of ned kelly on trial.JPG and Image:Margaret preston painting flapper 1925.JPG Cfitzart 05:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Cfitzart - I shall follow your example. One thing abt the Nolan/Kelly image: it's not square; can you tweak it in Photoshop?

Tried to make the assessment more npov, so far as I understand the policy. Unfortunately I have no idea what Robert Hughes might have had to say, so I've quoted Lou Klepac. The difficulty is that if you do nothing but quote the assessments of critics, no matter how eminant, the piece becomes wooden. (X says this, Y says that, etc). Anyway, the second para of the assessment is now the Klepac quote. The first is a distillation of my reading on Drysdale - my own words, but what I believe would be generally accepted (and after all, Drysdale isn't a controversial figure, just a largely ignored one).PiCo 03:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Drysdale.JPG

Image:Drysdale.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russell Drysdale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121230092401/http://www.evabreuerartdealer.com.au/drysdale.html to http://www.evabreuerartdealer.com.au/drysdale.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.griffithreview.com/images/stories/edition_articles/ed19_pdfs/wallace_ed19.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)