Talk:The Indian Church (painting)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Dr.K. in topic Name change
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Indian Church (painting) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from The Indian Church (painting) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name change
editDespite what is being claimed in the edit summaries of the article itself, artworks are quite often renamed. There is nothing time honoured about the original name and the AGO is well within its purview to change the title. We need to reflect that in a neutral manner, and not take sides. It's done and all we can do is say why. As for the title of the article, WP:COMMONNAME may apply here (although it's not exactly a household name), however an article title change may be necessary at some point. However, we need to be clear in the first line and not editorialize: it was once called The Indian Church, it was renamed in 2018 (the "by the Art Gallery of Ontario" is unnecessary, but I won't fight it). Anything more is POV. freshacconci (✉) 02:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is correct that paintings are often renamed (or simply named) after an artist dies. (As an example, all of Tom Thomson's canvases from the winter of 1916–17 were titled after his death)[1] I agree that there needs to be more focus put on maintaining a neutral point of view. I myself have strong feelings about things like this in art, but I'm not about to let it enter into my editing! Tkbrett (✉) 03:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- But can neutral point of view go so far as to say 'renamed' instead of 'called' in the first sentence of this page? That's saying that a museum can change the name of an already established, well-known, and important painting and Wikipedia has to say 'renamed' because sources claim it is renamed. I would think a qualifier would be needed, but 'called' instead of 'renamed' seems a more accurate term. As for Thomson, and thank you for your nice work on the subject, your example is about naming the paintings after he died (if I understand your sentence correctly the paintings weren't as yet named by Thomson, so no name actually existed to rename). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Taking the other side, ships are commonly retitled, depending on ownership. Is a painting like a ship, and do the current owners of paintings, like ships, get to retitle the piece? Are the titles of paintings bought at auction or given as donations, or are they the common property of the artist? If the former, now I want to gain control of the Board of Directors of the Art Institute of Chicago so I can fulfill a non-existing childhood dream {i.e. just using it for the phrasing) and rename Picasso's The Guitar Player to Play That Funky Music, White Boy. (EDIT: WP:ASTONISH. check out where The Guitar Player goes. RM anyone? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Admittedly, it's somewhat ambiguous with Thomson. The one case I definitely can point to is In the Northland which was known as The Birches when Thomson exhibited it in March 1916 but was subsequently renamed.[2] Consulting my library, I haven't been able to actually determine the who or the when of its re-titling. In any case, he isn't the subject of this page. My point here is that I want to understand whether there is any precedent for this. The example of The Old Guitarist is somewhat of a straw man, given that the argument here is not simply whether a museum should be allowed to change the titles of paintings on their own personal whims. Rather, as the AGO curators have used as their justification, there is a lot of baggage that comes with the word "Indian," baggage that wasn't present when Carr was alive. To continue to use the hurtful term is to fail to recognize the changes in attitudes. (At least, that's my interpretation of the argument). I'm not sure if I agree with all of their points, but it's best to be charitable when considering someone else's argument. Perhaps we could put in a request for comments since I don't imagine this issue will go away any time soon. I'd like to hear what those wiser than me have to say since I'm approaching this with little to no knowledge on this type of issue. Tkbrett (✉) 15:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think if the sources call it a rename, and the renaming is mentioned in the article, as it is, the term should be "renamed". This will avoid OR, POV, SYNTH, or other issues. Dr. K. 17:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- In that case, if this is precedent, and especially if an RM actually proposes changing the title of this page to its "rename", The Old Guitarist does become an apt example. People will, without doubt, begin objecting to the word 'old' at some point. It's an insulting and actually ill-defined and ill-defining slur, and before long it will be on par with other characterzational-slurs. Maybe that's when an RM to make the painting The Old Guitarist the redirect of The Guitarist will come in handy, as the Art Institute Board will possibly be influenced by this renaming event and precedent. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- And if that happens with The Old Guitarist, then that discussion will occur on the relevant talk page. At present it has not happened and we're discussing a different painting. This talk page hardly seems the place to lament cultural trends you disagree with. Remember that talk pages are not forums. It is our responsibility to edit independent of our own points of view and only with content we can verify. Tkbrett (✉) 19:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- This question is about who names a work of art, nothing more. Wikipedia's descriptor of a paintings title consistently reflects the artist's name for it, per direct naming or translation. In this instance of a museum proclaiming that a rename has taken place Wikipedia's neutral language page covers that, saying "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." How you say it should include the proposed change, "called" for "renamed". The museum has the choice to "rename" an established work of art only within the museum. This does not mean the painting is actually "renamed", as Wikipedia is now saying, which misrepresents the reach of exhibitors and legal owners of individual works of art. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's not only the museum that calls it a renaming. The reliable sources, the newpaspers, also call it a renaming. On wiki we go by the terminology used by the WP:RS. It's as simple as that. Anything else would be SYNTH and POV. Dr. K. 21:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- This question is about who names a work of art, nothing more. Wikipedia's descriptor of a paintings title consistently reflects the artist's name for it, per direct naming or translation. In this instance of a museum proclaiming that a rename has taken place Wikipedia's neutral language page covers that, saying "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." How you say it should include the proposed change, "called" for "renamed". The museum has the choice to "rename" an established work of art only within the museum. This does not mean the painting is actually "renamed", as Wikipedia is now saying, which misrepresents the reach of exhibitors and legal owners of individual works of art. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- And if that happens with The Old Guitarist, then that discussion will occur on the relevant talk page. At present it has not happened and we're discussing a different painting. This talk page hardly seems the place to lament cultural trends you disagree with. Remember that talk pages are not forums. It is our responsibility to edit independent of our own points of view and only with content we can verify. Tkbrett (✉) 19:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Admittedly, it's somewhat ambiguous with Thomson. The one case I definitely can point to is In the Northland which was known as The Birches when Thomson exhibited it in March 1916 but was subsequently renamed.[2] Consulting my library, I haven't been able to actually determine the who or the when of its re-titling. In any case, he isn't the subject of this page. My point here is that I want to understand whether there is any precedent for this. The example of The Old Guitarist is somewhat of a straw man, given that the argument here is not simply whether a museum should be allowed to change the titles of paintings on their own personal whims. Rather, as the AGO curators have used as their justification, there is a lot of baggage that comes with the word "Indian," baggage that wasn't present when Carr was alive. To continue to use the hurtful term is to fail to recognize the changes in attitudes. (At least, that's my interpretation of the argument). I'm not sure if I agree with all of their points, but it's best to be charitable when considering someone else's argument. Perhaps we could put in a request for comments since I don't imagine this issue will go away any time soon. I'd like to hear what those wiser than me have to say since I'm approaching this with little to no knowledge on this type of issue. Tkbrett (✉) 15:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Taking the other side, ships are commonly retitled, depending on ownership. Is a painting like a ship, and do the current owners of paintings, like ships, get to retitle the piece? Are the titles of paintings bought at auction or given as donations, or are they the common property of the artist? If the former, now I want to gain control of the Board of Directors of the Art Institute of Chicago so I can fulfill a non-existing childhood dream {i.e. just using it for the phrasing) and rename Picasso's The Guitar Player to Play That Funky Music, White Boy. (EDIT: WP:ASTONISH. check out where The Guitar Player goes. RM anyone? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- But can neutral point of view go so far as to say 'renamed' instead of 'called' in the first sentence of this page? That's saying that a museum can change the name of an already established, well-known, and important painting and Wikipedia has to say 'renamed' because sources claim it is renamed. I would think a qualifier would be needed, but 'called' instead of 'renamed' seems a more accurate term. As for Thomson, and thank you for your nice work on the subject, your example is about naming the paintings after he died (if I understand your sentence correctly the paintings weren't as yet named by Thomson, so no name actually existed to rename). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
