User talk:Modernist/Archive4

User:Research Method at Western painting and Transubstantiation#Transubstantiation in Art

Hi, I just wanted to draw your attention to these two discussions. See WPVA talk for Transubstantiation in Art. Thanks. Lithoderm (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

November 4

Go Obama! - Modernist (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If I could vote in your elections, he'd have my vote. But I'm not sure he needs it. Things are looking good (fingers crossed). freshacconci talktalk 16:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You can say that again!--First- time voter (19) Lithoderm (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Amen. JNW (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

November 5 A New Chapter Begins

WOW!! A day and a moment for all time...Modernist (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:* Kafka Liz (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

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.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page

Ty. Ty 17:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Western painting

To make it watertight there need to be refs for the 2nd sentence, the first 3 sentences of the 3rd paragraph and the last sentence. Ty 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll do the rest later..Modernist (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

DONE...added all the references above...Modernist (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no anti-American POV pushing in this instance. The objection is to the imbalance between recent and older art, and this is a valid objection as Neo-Expressionism has as much space at the whole of the Renaissance. However, if Research Method wishes to fix it, then he needs to add content. Regarding Medieval art, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument, I'm afraid. Ty 14:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing Medieval art was meant simply to point to the hypocrisy involved with his focus at this particular article, now; and his strenuous objections to the Hudson River School earlier. I have said, over and over again that these articles are works in progress..The skeletons of earlier sections can be fleshed out by other editors adding well researched material. Because the Baroque is weak and Neo-expressionism not so weak that is no reason to weaken Neo-expressionism; but it is a good reason to strengthen the Baroque. I look forward to seeing all of those historical sections developed further. Eventually this article might have to be split into Western painting Part I and Western painting Part II...in my opinion..Modernist (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Great work on all the refs in the lead. I quite agree per my previous post that earlier sections should be enlarged, not later ones cut down. If the whole article gets too large, then Wikipedia:Summary style could be applied. Another possibility is putting the whole of the "20th century section" into an article 20th century western painting and summarising it in Western painting with a link. Ty 02:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ty, as the earlier sections get developed (as I hope they will); the article will have to be sectioned and 20th & 21st centuries might be the Part II section...Modernist (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I suggest, eventually, an article titled as present, but with shorter sections in balance with each other throughout, linking to longer articles that go into each section in depth. But it's not something I'm going to be editing. Ty 03:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Milton Avery

Does recent scholarship accept the 1893 birth date? Three sources I checked (Treasures From the National Museum of American Art, 1985; Milton Avery: A Singular Vision, 1987; and "Sun, Surf & Subversion", ARTnews, December 1982) all give his birth year as 1885 -- according to the latter two sources, Avery misrepresented 1893 as his birth year, apparently beginning from the time he was courting his much-younger wife, and the ruse was discovered only after his death. Ewulp (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself, I'll try to do some more checking..Modernist (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch..Modernist (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Friedrich

I feel very strongly about not having an infobox, and if we have to trash this out can we do it by email, so we can talk freely without others watching. Otherwise, after the gaps in the bio coverage and the "landscape" section are written, I think we are there. Its shaping up well. The legacy section was easily sourced this time; thank god! I think we should put a 'to do before FAC' list on the talk, and start crossing off as we go. Best to you. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way - my memory of the beginning of Friedrich's resurgence was in the 1960s on the pages of Artforum and elsewhere and is refreshed by this article by the late Robert Rosenblum [1] read it if you have time...there are refs galore in there...Modernist (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. Such a difference to Bosch; the legacy section could be twice the lenght of the rest of the article.....oh the irony. That Bosch legacy section still sends shivers down me timbers. Euf. Ceoil ^sláinte 04:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pong! You got mail. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspar David Friedrich

• I hadn't looked at this article in months and I was amazed by what I found. You've done a terrific job on this article. Star work, really. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you, much appreciated..User:Ceoil is the motivator par excellence...Modernist (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Rokeby Venus

Is up for mainpage on the 22nd. Eeek! Ceoil ^sláinte 13:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

All hands on deck...Modernist (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sent you a mail. We need need to regroup, and fast! Ceoil (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I will keep watch...Modernist (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Panic over: The Venus is just gone from mainpage and we are back again to featuring video games (I'm not joking)! But the level of vandalism wasn't as bad as I expected, thank god. By the way, have you any interest in this. I only came accross it yesterday for the first time, but it is really amazing, and has a great backstory. I think I focus in on this for a frew weeks, see how far I get. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I protected her a little this am, I agree it wasn't as bad as it might have been...The wreck is a great painting and Gericault died so young..good choice..Modernist (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Great find and addition Modernist,[2] very nice work. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this?[3]. I have to admit I'd only seen about half of them before (I knew from Giotto to Monet, but little before or after!. Ceoil (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased, Rosenblum's insights read like poetry, thanks..Modernist (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak?

Does the banner at the top of you page still describe your current state, or is it merely an advisory of some possible future break? Because you do a lot of good work for someone who isn't here. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am always on the verge of taking....an extended break, I thought I wasn't quite done and then there I go again...I'm reading Rosenblum's 1961 essay The Abstract Sublime it's very interesting - making a comparison between Turner, Friedrich, and Rothko..Liz have you read it? Modernist (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well... I hope you'll stay with us. Or at least come back, if you do go on break. I haven't read that particular essay; where is it published? Kafka Liz (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It was in ArtNEWS years ago, I have an old catalog from the Metropolitan Museum of Art...Liz I am on the verge, thinking my help isn't really needed so much anymore...we'll see...Modernist (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can dig it up. About thinking your help isn't needed... I understand that feeling well, and it's a pretty depressing one. The situations that made me feel that way are diverse, and I'd rather not go into them here, but I definitely know what you're talking about. If it means anything, I really appreciate the work you do and believe you are far from "unneeded." I could add a lot more on this subject -- feeling unneeded, the difficulties of combating that feeling, why and when wikibreaks are necessary, coming back from breaks, and why I appreciate your work -- but I really need to start getting ready for work (as in, the job that pays the bills), and adding a weird rambling personal essay on your talkpage... might not be in order. Long and short of it, I'd hate to see you go. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Liz, I still have some things to unravel, and for now I'm still willing to keep going..Modernist (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Modernist, I'm dissapointed and worried to read this; I hope you realise what a huge asset you are to the visual arts on wikipedia - there are not many editors out there with your range and dept of knowledge....look at your contribs:[4] - 4,226 unique articles and 80% of your edits have been to mainspace! That kind of editing dosen't grow on trees. You are certainly appreciated, by me and many other; you were the first person I turned to when I decided on working on Gericault (Sorry Liz!), and I had planned on working with you for a long time yet. I really hope you decide to stick with us. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ceoil, I appreciate what you say, I anticipate a war to come over Fair use of images of works of art; and I am tiring of the fight...I am not ready to quit but it has been a long battle and it still has not been settled or clarified..I do the best that I can...Thanks to you and Liz...Modernist (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm worried about that too. For the Nash painting I borrowed the rationale from Garden, as it seemed to be a similar case. And I know all about tiring fights; I had to walk away from one completely recently or risk severely losing my temper. Something about a glass of water, as I recall... Kafka Liz (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There's that oak tree too.. Hopefully I will weather the coming storm...Modernist (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll have a lot of back up from us, at least. Ceoil (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, I and others are here and will help. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What I find fustrating about FU is that it limits how we present articles on 20th C artworks and artists. We can show the main painting at a push, but are limited in showing other similar influential and associated works in the same article. Bty, which oak tree do you mean?

Christ, you don't want to know. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take you word for that, Liz ;). Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's starting here [5] although its not the oak - thank the stars..Modernist (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A thread (i.e., the one at talk:non-free) that long calls for supplies of food and wine. I'm watching it now, and I can try asking some folks I know for advice. There may be arguments we haven't considered... I have some friends who specialise in this kind of thing. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil if that issue comes back, I will surely ask for your help..Modernist (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Has it resolved itself? I stopped watching. Or are you talking about something else? Kafka Liz (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

M, it might not be your sytle, but maybe this might cheer you up. Keep up the good fight! Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll stand my ground...good song, Thanks Ceoil, Liz, I'm talking about another issue that really is at the heart of our ability to use Fair use images in visual arts articles and in galleries in visual arts articles..as well. It's a long and old argument a skirmish was waged over the Miro in The Garden of Earthly Delights..the other thing that you mention, the glass of oak water, thankfully seems quiet for now..Modernist (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The friendly ghost

I just noticed it was you who added most of the gallery, great work, again! If you can remember where you got the text for the captions, can you add cites. Once that is done I think we are there and we can go back to the FAC page. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything came from the article except The Chalk Cliffs..looks like you've got all but two referenced, those captions are quotes from the above text...which is ok..Modernist (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just finished this. I changed one or two of the captions, but am happy now. Modernist, I'm so happy with the way the page turned out, thank you for all your help and additions. If I may say so, we have a put together fine team, and I'm looking forward to our next project. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done Ceoil, I like your changes..Modernist (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. Mizu onna sango15

The Barnstar | My RFA | Design by L'Aquatique

		The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
		Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. —Mizu onna sango15Hello!

Thank You Re: Wally Hedrick

Thanks for your time, interest and acumen concerning the Wally Hedrick page. Respectfully --Art4em (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspar David Friedrich

O Modernist this is so overdue....

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Congratulations Moderist for bringing Caspar David Friedrich to FA. In addition to everthing else you added to the page, the gallery you created is really something to be proud of. Ceoil (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Géricault

You have mail. And no its not about infoboxes! Ceoil (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see one, I'll check again later...Modernist (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We've had this problem before; send me a blank mail and I'll trply to that. Ceoil (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a shot.Modernist (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it..and thank you for the articles and for the barnstar...Modernist (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Nordic Landscapes Award
		Thank you for all your help and hard work in helping bring Caspar David Friedrich to FA. It has been a pleasure to work with you once again, and I hope there will be more opportunities to do so in the future. In the meantime, please enjoy this cheery landscape. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Liz...I enjoyed the process..Modernist (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up :) [6] Kafka Liz (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Rothko

Well, the Rothko seems to be back, at least... [7] Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:ThreeMenWalkingII.JPG

Pretty simple really- the image has no source, we don't know where the uploader found it. This means that there is no way of verifying the licensing of the image. I used the no-source tag as it seemed fairly uncontroversial- I knew people would notice it (due to the captions and the fact it was probably on some people's watchlists, along with a note to the uploader) and so I assumed that someone would be able to provide the source and remove the deletion notice with no hassle. Do you know where the photo has been taken from? J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough...no I don't and it should have had a source, agreed..burn it..Modernist (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wordsworth

Jean-Léon Gérôme, Pygmalion and Galatea, 1890, Metropolitan Museum of Art

I'm trying to decide on a lead inage for The Lucy poems here. The present image on the mainspace article seems too dark and oppresive for the article, and ideally would like to use a painting by a romantic artist (but not too late) that would encaspulate at least some of: unrequited love, personification of nature, simplicity in living, isolation & seperation, early death, or lonliesness. Do you have any ideas? Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No offense my friend, but I can't stand that sentimental, corny picture..then there is always this one [8] ...:)...or Symphony in White, by Whistler, same girl.. Modernist (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus you gave me a fright until I scrolled down there! I'm an Irish catholic! With a weak heart! But thanks for the suggestion, I like it a lot. Any others let me know. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK sorry about that I didn't realize how deeply religious you are: there is always this page to peruse Academic art or this: [9] by Botticelli...Modernist (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm only joking you Modernist, though I wondered for a second or two with the first image what the hell you wrere up to! But I love the Whistler, and it fits very well on the article, the flow of the dress behind, the tall verticles, the brach in her hand, the red hair, and hesitant gaze; exactly what I hoped for. But that said, we could squeeze in a few more artworks, the Gérôme is lovely (I do like a good arse, as you know); keep 'em comong. Thank you, best. Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Whistler is my first choice...I thought you'd enjoy the Courbet though...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you watch the talk. Liz has objected, and I'm not comfortable with a lead image that all cannot be happy with. Its a tricky one, but i'm sure there is a solution. Ceoil (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK this is interesting.......[10]..Modernist (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

re: "this one," lmao in a corner :D Nice one!!!! Kafka Liz (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well innocence it ain't...but interesting as hell..Modernist (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its outstanding. Ceoil (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So much I could say, but so much I won't. :D Kafka Liz (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Liz sometimes Courbet just put it out there..I've always wondered exactly why they booted him out of France..but I guess he must've pissed somebody off enough..I posted a Blakelock moonlight painting at the talk page..His paintings might work as an accompaniment to a poem..Modernist (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, forget it. Our discussions mean nothing. We've been reverted. Ceoil (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted images

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Deleted_images

I have split your post into sections so it can be discussed more easily. If you don't want this, then revert. Ty 14:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ty, It's clear..I'll add a comment or two..Modernist (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Bouguereau

Speaking of Bouguereau, I noticed that The Young Shepherdess has been nommed for deletion. I don't see any reason to delete the stub at this point, though the material that's there could be fit into a picture caption.... Lithoderm 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg

L'Origine du monde is one of this user's favorite paintings.

You know, there's a userbox for you there :) Lithoderm 22:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Now thats a userbox! Thanks....I'll check that deletion out...Modernist (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the delete tag on the Bouguereau - it wasn't placed correctly and was a dead link..Modernist (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and don't get discouraged about image deletions in general... I'm sure some compromise is possible. Whenever I begin to think that wikipedia is failing, I spend a few minutes at Conservapedia looking at arts articles... it's absolutely hilarious. Renoir is a particular favorite of mine ("he was perhaps the only painter never to paint a sad picture"), and Mark Rothko is amusing. Lithoderm 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You know a couple of years ago wikipedia really wasn't much better. I'm proud of it now and it's gonna get better..The image hunters are a pain..in the oak...thanks...Modernist (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice writing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Field#Magna_paint Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, still a long way to go...just takes time..Modernist (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Very good. That is the way to write an art article. Without bombast. Just clearly and concisely descriptive. I couldn't do it. But I recognize it when I see it. You've written an excellent article, about the meat-and-potatoes of mid twentieth century American (and Canadian) art. Keep it up. It is a very good article. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Still a long way to go there...not finished by a long way...Modernist (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

He's Back...

[11]

Just the sort of non-free image use we're trying to cut down on, I'd say. Lithoderm 06:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Grant Wood

Well, this sucker is PD-US. Feel free to put it on your user page or whatever. Lithoderm 19:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You performed 3 reverts. That is not an entitlement. Edit warring is likely to lead to being blocked. I strongly advise following WP:BRD and restricting yourself to one revert, then raising discussion and following WP:DR. Have some patience. Ty 08:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ty in the last few days they've deleted a great and important analytic cubist Picasso - Portrait of Daniel Henry Kahnweiler, a major Morris Louis, two Sam Francis paintings, a Dubuffet, Joseph Cornell, Klee, Louise Bourgeois, Herbert Ferber, Larry Poons, Charles Arnoldi, two Ellsworth Kelly's and more..by people who don't know or care what any of the stuff means or says..They know policy ??? and guidelines - ???? but like drones thats all they know, and even then it's doubtful it's being interpreted properly..the point is they don't know WP:UCS. Maybe I should email the foundation and just ask them if they want to have an encyclopedia that has contemporary art or not..what do you think? Modernist (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that art history classes are, or were, taught with extensive reference to images, generally slide projected. I think that tradition shows the importance of images to talking about art. Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Litho, and also to Bus Stop...Modernist (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Check out this discussion. The mere fact of deletion isn't the point. There could be valid reasons for that. It's the context that needs to be examined and whether WP:NFC is being followed. I thought Dubuffet was sorted out now. As for the others, please wikilink them to the deleted page, so it's possible to see deletion rationale etc. It might be helpful to get a Foundation response on how they want their mandate to be interpreted and to point out where you think the quality of the project is being compromised excessively. Ty 00:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ty I'm loathe to join such a nest of better not say over there, anything I say is gonna turn there heads over here, I mean the saving grace is even they locked betamax up; because it's a waste of time..They don't see a difference between a Balthus and a UCLA logo..or a Grant Wood in a few articles - three or four..I'm curious who should I write to at the foundation? Modernist (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting joining in that debate, just to note it. Wikimedia Foundation[12]. Kat Walsh statement.[13] Ty 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The message from FU deletionists is that if you want a FU image to be kept in an article, then it must have critical text specifically directed to that image and naming it, preferably with cast iron referencing to validate its significance. I think this demand is beyond policy and can distort writing, where the theme might be the technique in general, of which an image is an example, rather than the important of a particular image in its own right, i.e. the image illustrates the technique. However, it may be a way to avoid protracted battles. Ty 01:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, I am trying to add pertinent specific text, absurd as that is, sometimes although then you get comments like at the Rothko deletion debate over whether that particular Rothko was mentioned and my eyes cross; and I it simply staggers the mind, thanks for the links, I'll be as thoughtful as possible when I send the email, probably not tonight, I gotta think about it...Modernist (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ty,

I'm studying this:

Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.

Since individual projects have differing community standards and there are potentially legal issues in different jurisdictions, individual projects may choose to be more restrictive than Foundation policy requires, such as the many projects that do not allow "fair use" media at all. However, no project may have content policies less restricive, or that allow licenses other than those allowed on Wikimedia Commons and limited fair use.

Thanks....Modernist (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reflections on minimal use

• One Jackson Pollock painting in 9 important articles is better than nine Jackson Pollock paintings in 9 important articles.
• Minimal use - means the number of FU images are kept to minimum and are only used in important places where words do not suffice..
• In some cases like Pablo Picasso and/or others artists whose works evolve one image of an artist style or separate period or phase or type is minimal use. Modernist (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

AIC

RE your concerns about the AIC statement-

“ Reproduction, including downloading, is prohibited by copyright laws and international conventions without the express written permission of Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. ”

-The relevant guidelines for PD-US (from WP:PD are maddeningly vauge (the second bullet is especially confusing):

"Strictly speaking, only U.S. works published before January 1 1923 and foreign works published in compliance with U.S. formalities (registration, © notice) before that date are in the public domain in the U.S. For non-U.S. works published without compliance with U.S. formalities (i.e., without © notice), the situation is a bit more complicated:

• • • If published before 1909, such works are in the public domain in the U.S.
    • If published between 1909 and 1922 (inclusive) in a language other than English, the Ninth Circuit has considered them as "unpublished works" according to Peter Hirtle and following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case Twin Books v. Disney in 1996. The case was about the book Bambi, A Life in the Woods; the decision is heavily criticized in Nimmer on Copyright (ISBN 0-820-51465-9), the standard commentary on U.S. copyright law.
    • If published between 1909 and 1922 (inclusive) in English, they are highly likely to be PD, given that the aforementioned controversial case was only about a work published in a foreign language.
    • Additionally, any work first published outside of the United States without copyright notice prior to 1989, when the U.S. joined the Berne Convention, is in the public domain in the U.S. if it was in the public domain in its country of origin on the URAA date (in most cases January 1, 1996). See the section on country-specific rules for more information.

Also, the 1923 cut-off date applies only to the U.S. This means foreign works first published before 1923 are in the public domain in the U.S., but may still be copyrighted outside the U.S."

Yet it goes on to say that "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." In that case, the policy is to ignore the institution's claim of copyright. I've been going with that blanket cut-off date of 1923. I will have to leave any finer points to Ty, who seems to have a better grasp of this.

I also fail to see why the Grant Wood doesn't meet the "Iwo Jima test". But seriously, any insistence on the primacy of images is beating a dead horse at this point. If there are references and you discuss explicitly how it is relevant to the article, it should be ironclad... The grant wood article needs references, anyway... I see B-command has been blocked for unrelated reasons, btw... I would encourage any attempt to seek an exception for visual art from the foundation... just lighter requirements, not blanket acceptance- it's only reasonable.

Lithoderm 01:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just choose the right tag from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#Art. Per later comments above, choose {{PD-art-US}}. Institutions sometimes claim copyright which they are not entitled to. Ty 01:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm studying these things and Tyrenius, you are clearly the best at understanding how to navigate these choppy waters...Modernist (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Aphrodite

Do you think you could come up with a better lead image for the above. I'd prefer to move the Botticell to the "Birth, rising from the sea" section, I dont think it best for the top of the page. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought...Modernist (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked here? It's where to start......Muse...and of course here:Venus de Milo, my favorite.....or this: Aphrodite of Cnidus..Modernist (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer an ancient Greek depiction for an ancient Greek deity-- you could try the lead image at Apelles. Lithoderm 22:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good too, I'm just partial to Venus de Milo as a lead...It has such a punch..Modernist (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Aphrodite of Rhodes

The Botticell is vanilla as far as I'm concerned, I like the Fountain of Aphrodite, or that lady over to my left there, if it wasn't such a poor shot. The Venus de Milo I like very much. Modernist, a gallery is needed. And hello Lithoderm. Ceoil (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I made the change, its more physical and viseral now. Ceoil (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A gallery of Aphrodite hmmm...might be something to work on...Modernist 05:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I look forward. Ceoil (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's now ongoing...starting with a couple of oldies...Modernist (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, get those paleolithoderms out of there. They have nothing to do with the mythological deity; the term "venus" was attached to them by archaeologists. As the article is about the greco-roman deity; those figures were doubtless attached with fertility goddesses that were more akin to to Demeter... we should focus on depictions of the goddess, by artists who intended to depict her. By the way, there is also Venus (mythology)...? Really, how can one possibly say that x is a depiction of Venus and y is a depiction of Aphrodite? Lithoderm 07:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK now first of all - Aphrodite and Venus are the same gal; as far as I know..and if you want the old gals to vanish - just remember it was your idea, not mine :)...Modernist (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, I'm just saying "how can we possibly decide which image goes on which page"? Should all of them go on both pages? Should we focus on Aphrodite, because the Romans were unoriginal bastards? It's confusing. Lithoderm

Add em both...Romans and Greeks...Modernist (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont know to say thanks outside of sharing something that is both visually and sonically sublime[14]. Great work, im almost <blushing>. But Aphrodite is no gal; Woman. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, intense and real...nice way to start the day...thanks, I'll work on the gallery as I get a chance.Modernist (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually she's no woman Ceoil, she's a Goddess...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Let the record show that I stand corrected. Cheers, Modernist, for showing me up; my friend, he he. Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, anytime...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Matisse

Wow, I hadn't seen this one before... reminds me of Diebenkorn. (Who, by the way, also needs attention) Will this do? Lithoderm 22:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the color isn't great...I'll look for a better one, but It's going into Color Field painting, and yes - Diebenkorn et al...Modernist (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, there's nothing on ARTstor, so I'll check my books, maybe I can scan something. In the meantime here's the first page of Google results- not much. [15] Lithoderm 23:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The first one is not too bad...Modernist (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks great...thank you...Modernist (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Will you split the legacy section into "influences" and "legacy"? I get this odd feeling of time warp right now.. Lithoderm 23:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Good thought, I'm still working on that section, influences is a nice idea, I'll think about it...Modernist (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe after you're done with Color field, you could work on Hard-edge painting- right now it has no pictures whatsoever. I'm looking into a high resolution image of the Matisse, see here. Evidently someone has found a way to get extremely high quality images... Lithoderm 07:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, User:Olpl came through on this one!

Er, yeah...I had a Kenneth Noland stripe painting from 1968 at Hard-edge painting and Phil Knight deleted it without any ifs and or comments...I'll be happy to work on it though. Modernist (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well... anyhow, the pictures this guy is uploading are absolutely incredible- take a look at this painting of Van Gogh's, you can see every brushstroke... (although it takes a looooong time to load!) Lithoderm 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You will definitely like The return of the prodigal son, 35Mb file too. They are pain to crop in GIMP with 1Gb of memory, so you are welcome to help me to edit and upload them. I do not seed this torrent anymore, but I have these files converted to JPEG 100% and willing to give them anyone interested. Complete set takes around 8Gb. 0151 00:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_125.jpg

Well, it is big and clear and slow. The image hunters will have a field day with anything remotely Fair Use that has such clear resolution...Modernist (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I must say it looks great! Don't worry about image-hunting; PDUS is PDUS. Lithoderm 18:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Litho, another of Matisse's all-time great paintings...Modernist (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary works of art

I agree categories for all individual works of contemporary art would be nice, but firstly I think "contemporary" has to start at ?? 1980 now, and really it would be best to build up a structure from "1988 paintings" etc, which we have, and "contemporary paintings" which we don't, Category:Art installations, plus appropriate "Works by Foo" categories etc. This was intended for the really unclassifiable only, & I don't think much is gained by adding other greatest hits, by no means all falling under "contemporary" now. All the best for the holidays! Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean...I'll rethink using it...Have a great holiday too...Modernist (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

On Eakins and season's greetings

Hi Modernist; Thank you for adding the quotes to the talk page for The Swimming Hole. I am very familiar with the quote from the letter to his father, and included it in his bio when I expanded it a long time ago. The rest is a wonderful example of his courage and stubbornness. I like to read his writing, but even more to look at his paintings, and enjoy his iconoclastic devotion to the beauty of the body and his love of intellect, science, and melancholy. And by the way: very happy holidays! JNW (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that Eakins had a character that is both brilliant and courageous to some and was infuriating to many....the willingness to take a stand sets him apart and adds to his legacy. I know that you've written lot's about Eakins, I was frustrated that I haven't found my old Goodrich bio, it was one of my first artbooks...Happy Holidays to you and thanks for all of your good work..Modernist (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Holiday postcard--what it was like today, minus the sun.

I'm fortunate to possess Goodrich's 1982 double volume on the artist. If he suppressed information that he thought would damage Eakins's reputation, he was nonetheless a most perceptive champion, and a brilliant prose writer. I can re-read his passages after 25 years and still find them fresh. Cheers, JNW (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I just found an Eakins bio by Fairfield Porter just sittin' on a shelf and this quote by Walt Whitman after Eakins was fired is interesting Eakins is not a painter, he is a force. As you mentioned in the article and I had forgotten that the students in Philadelphia formed a Philadelphia Art Students League in support of Eakins after he was fired, - (very strong statement); and he refused payment and taught gratis...and he was betrayed by his brother-in law among others...Modernist (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Whitman posed for him, and Eakins was one of his pallbearers. If I recall correctly, it was his brother-in-law who was convinced that Eakins seduced his mentally unstable daughter (Eakins's niece), who subsequently killed herself. The sexual interpretations of artists' lives and work are of little interest to me, but sometimes, as in Eakins's case, they produce a plethora of literature, and I want to try to include such in a balanced way, remembering that it is is speculation after all. What is known, and fascinating, is what you underscored with the quotes from his letters: that he was vigorous in his exacting research and painting of the human subject, not only the mechanical and physical properties of the nude, but the complexity of peoples' characters. He, too, was obviously complex. JNW (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that he inspired significant loyalties from amongst his students, he seemed to have as Whitman suggests an earthly sense of reality; and how that translated into his sexual relations is anybodies guess and nobody's business. I think it should be played down in the Swimming hole as you're doing...speculation is ok but IMO it's a minor element...Modernist (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the card, it feels like a real winter these days......Modernist (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year! Kafka Liz (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

I dont know why the mood of this brings you to mind, but it does. I suppose I have not worked so closely with anybody else on wiki, and on more articles, than you, and I hope you know how much I appreciate that. Onwards! Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ceoil...I guess this sums up some of my feelings about the way I feel about this years end:...the public speaks, and again...a sad version, with memories...Modernist (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Very much enjoyed your Dylan link thanks, O i do like Dylan! Thinking you might like this[16]. Lucinda Williams, what a voice. Ceoil (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If you know Jeff Buckley, I presume you know Tim, and that you have heard this cover of "Song to the Siren[17]? Ceoil (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ty! Ty 17:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There is still a fair amount of just great folk being made these days, I fairly sure you will enjoy Smog, or this fragile heartbreaker. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And of course I know Paul Brady, but hadn't heard that song before. Did you get as far as Planxty? You should. And then there is this [18], the most moving cetlic song of them all. See Pieter Bourke. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to let it to you to call when you think the raft is ready for a nom. Frankly I dont yet have the knowledge or sources needed to weigh in on Johnbods comments, but Im reading up in the background, and I see you have a good grasp. I'll let you lead on this one if thats ok. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's getting close...We've worked on some of those issues..lets give it a little more work. I like the article now, it is an important article about an important painting....The differences that Johnbod and I have seems to have narrowed some..Modernist (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I want give it a few more passes for prose and sources, but otherwise I think we are good to go. Do you want to do the honours here and FAC as co-nom? Just keep the nom reason brief and lets see what happens. O and had a great new year with some old friends. You? And by the way keeps the music links coming. Ceoil (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It was very cold last night, and I drove out to see friends, and then came back to have some champagne at home, it was nice...Thanks but I'd prefer it if you did the nomination mostly because this was your idea from the start...JNW, Litho, Johnbod, you, me...Oh, that music..Modernist (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I'm feeling guilty that I always do the noming, and because you wrote much of the page, I going to insist that you nom (and co nom) as you see fit. Re: JNW, Litho, Johnbod, you, me; you forgot Outriggr, Liz and Yomagani he he. Any here is a very evil tune [19]. Ceoil (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Got the link and watching now. Thnaks M. Ceoil (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Odetta before, but that is a very moving performance. A rather obvious Muddy Waters track to choose, but oh my. Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

An even better version here. You dont see fret work like that every day, and the tone is just amasing. Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just as a heads up, its generally best left to the person makeing the comments at FAC to make the strikes, best option is to let a little self satisified:

Done

after each comment and let the reviewer decide that the responce has been satisfatory to the matter to be closed. On that note can you remove any you've added today. Anyway, sorry I was away for a few days though things seem to be very much in hand. In other news, strange goings on in the Bosch articles eh? Oh and thanks for the links......Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to add done to the points you unstruck....Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

Happy hols to you too!

Re. images, see [20]. Both articles need a rethink, and the sooner the better. Any measures, even if temporary, would be a good thing, maybe removing the galleries for the time being, until the text can be properly attended to? Ty 13:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking about that..I will leave that entire section blank for now until I can add referenced text, and a lot of it...I know those issues have to be worked out, and I'm okay with that as the next step towards splitting the articles....Modernist (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year

Hi Modernist; My ramblings at the swimming hole were not directed at you or anyone else, but were really just musings on the responsibility of biographers. I just don't want my occasional growling to be misconstrued. With much respect and best wishes, JNW (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

I believe we are in the same time zone, so Happy New Year! Lithoderm 05:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Modernist, and Happy New Year to you, too. I'm about finished with the Swimming Hole, at least for now, and I've asked Raul to give it a look. JNW (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not champagne, but it serves the purpose

I've followed your lead on the Bosch edits, and tagged some articles. Your thoughts welcome. JNW (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith as to the motive, the result is still an imbalance to the content of several articles, especially if the interpretations are fairly unique to scholarship on Bosch, which is my hunch. If I'm wrong, I will be happy to be corrected. JNW (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the book so I can't say - but your tags look fair, and the inclusions seem repetitious, I was not pleased with the paragraph imposed into the Garden; likening God to Satan and an owl; etc...a kind of heavy handed newbie..but the wide range of IPs is weird. Like he/she changes computers every 20 minutes..Modernist (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image sources

This for safekeeping: [[Image:Gericault - study for Raft of the Medusa.jpg|thumb|upright|A charcoal sketch of one of the figures in the foreground] Er, this is a little tricky... I've made it very clear, on my user page and elsewhere, that I attend the Art Academy of Cincinnati. The Art Academy has purchased institutional access to ArtStor... and most of those "questionable images" are screen captures from ArtStor. The reason I used the vague "found on internet" is that I am afraid that if ArtStor realizes that its images are being uploaded to WMCommons, and that the uploader is from AAC, they may cut off institutional access.... I'm not even sure if the screen captures meet Wikipedia policy..... I will alter the source to make it clearer where they are from, but just be aware of why I left the source ambiguous in the first place..... Lithoderm 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, because all of ArtStor is javascripted, it is impossible to link to a specific image.... I sincerely apologize if this has any negative effect on the article's candidacy. Lithoderm 15:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to find other sources...for the raft there is this book: Grigsby, Darcy Grimaldo. Extremities: Painting Empire in Post-Revolutionary France. Yale University Press, 2002. 174–178. ISBN 0-3000-8887-6....p. 177 link-here-[21]...Modernist (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. The image is better quality, too. I assume you want a screen capture, and will upload it over the current file. Lithoderm 18:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Litho, I'll add the text...Modernist (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, and done. I hope to be winding down the volume of my contributions in the coming week: my grades were not as high as they could have been last semester- something I partially attribute to my time on Wikipedia... Lithoderm 20:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This link is interesting [22]Modernist (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychocinetic Art

I think this is a hoax, but wanted to ask if you had heard of this "Breathe" sculpture before I nominate it for speedy-deletion. Thanks, Lithoderm 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Never...Modernist (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I notified Ty about this more than a week ago, but he seems to be better at staying away from the computer than I am, so please take a look at it. Thanks, Lithoderm 16:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO discretion being the better part of valor; it might be better to remain with the fair use, with the potential of the study as pd in the background. From what I've seen there are only a few Picasso's that we have left that haven't been deleted for one reason or another..I agree that the smaller version of Demoiselles makes sense and I think it actually looks better than the larger pink version. Ty was on a break...looks like he's back now..Modernist (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

ON BOSCH I thought a core policy of Wikipedia was the idea of 'the wisdom of crowds'..you keep messing with the shakespeare quote and it gets lost. neutrality will emerge as democracy flourishes not from a few self appointed high priests policing the sites. I am not anti-semitic. You clearly believe some animals are more equal than others kind of thing. Sayerslle (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayerslle (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, I am trying to keep those articles neutral and not simply from the point of view of one author...I don't appreciate your personal attack..Modernist (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for fixing the Shakespeare quote. I like the way it looks now. Sayerslle (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome...Modernist (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

hi

Hi Modernist. I just want to assure you, in the Raft FAC I'm not accusing the article of having Artstor images, or accusing you or Lithoderm of doing something wrong, at all... I'm sorry for intruding on your FAC with the subject, but I think it's an interesting debate so I've commented once more and I'm done. You know, I hope, that I fall into the "what's the big deal about fair use" camp and it's the irony I'm hoping to point out, of the time they spend on "fair use" review while at the same time having no concern for the legal aspects of using Artstor content in a way that the site says is not allowed. I hope you'll agree it's kind of ironic. I'd love to have the whole Artstor collection on Commons, of course, but I would rather wikipedia be respected, respectable, and not put itself in legal gray areas. –Outriggr § 01:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in a state of total - what's the word - about the debate going on over there and the i......e b...k..which was richly deserved..As for the raft..it's as much for Ceoil, JNW, Tyrenius, Johnbod, Liz, and you as for me..and hopefully it'll pass, it is a great article about a great painting...I did feel incumbent to make clear that we don't have those images anymore...not a big deal, thanks for your message..Modernist (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I won't write "support" as I'm too involved but it's very good. I don't what ... is - now you got me curious. –Outriggr § 02:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I just realized who you must be referring to... interesting! –Outriggr § 02:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what this conversation is about! Slow Ceoil (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol...It's a secret language...:)..Modernist (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

He, I'll figure it out soon enough; and then TROUBLE for yer cosy cartel! Mark my words. Ceoil (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently obsorbed in Odetta. Not a bad place to get absorbed in ;) This takes my fancy; nice when a tired standard is reintrepretated and something new and brilliant is made out of it. Now thats talent. Thanks for letting me know about her. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I found nothing re Yo's "Numbers could be clearer" cmt. Anything with you? Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing 19, and not sure how many bodies...I agree with him..Modernist (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Page number please. Or Yo-zimbabwe and outriggered will rain down hold war. Upon us. You know how they are; a bit techy? No? Ceoil (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It'll take time...but I'll look..Modernist (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Medusa FAC

Thanks for the mention in the nom statement! Ty 07:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job there. Modernist (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Guardian angel

I added a few images to the page, but the pic in the lead still seems cheesy to me. Any ideas? Your doing a great job leading the raft FAC, by the way. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil, I gotta think about this page...Modernist (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Marcel Duchamp & 01 April

What do you think about building up Duchamp's toilet for FA for april fools day? The idea is being bandied about and there would be a lot of help. Potential for a very cool page, no? Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably interesting and fun..Modernist (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area Last: 11/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[23]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Odetta

I hear she passed; and to be fair and happily most of the English music monthlies carried half page obituaries, which was good. For some reason the link you gave me has no sound for Europens. But anyway, here is a distantly related link - they were both friends with Liam Clancy. Its hard to pick just one Luke Kelly track, but....the auld ones are...the best ones. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that the Odetta didn't play. If you have the chance to hear her from say the late 1950s through around 1963 she was great, the best! Thanks for the link...Modernist (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Template: Vincent van Gogh

Nice work on the family section! Ty. Ty 05:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good pyramid building!Modernist (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA vote

FYI, your recent vote in the Enigmaman RfA was removed because at the time you placed it the request had been put on hold by a bureaucrat. Avruch ^T 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever...it was being placed when that happened...Modernist (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

deletion request for File:Vincent van Gogh 1872.jpg

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh_1872.jpg Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I left you a message there. give me a minute...Modernist (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

New Arbitration Request

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [24]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Raft, Homer

Do you think you could incorporate an image of [25] into the legacy section. The version we have is quite low resolution, I'll see what I can find. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think it looks fine there...Modernist (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Brackman

Seems to have gone quiet. I've watchlisted. This[26] is somewhat excessive. Ty 23:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ty, I was anticipating a problem, hopefully it will stay quiet.Modernist (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Medusing

The draft of the raft has surpassed in its craft! Excellent! But the with the A team on the job... I enjoyed contributing and learnt some things en route.

I noticed you'd made an edit to Stella Vine and it would be helpful if you could keep an eye out on this and related articles. This edit[27] was not for the benefit of the encyclopedia.

Ty Ty 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye over there...Modernist (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just popping by to make sure you'd got a pat on the back too. I see Ty has beaten me to it, so I'll pre-empt The Swimming Hole passing and say good work on that. Yomangani^talk 01:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm hoping the Swimming hole passes too...Modernist (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, & thanks to you, Coeil & the others for putting much more into it than I did! Johnbod (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar, Modernist. And thank you for all the great work, and for your constant support. In your contributions to the visual arts, you are without peer. Yours appreciatively, JNW (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Seconded. Thanks... Ty 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have the time...

...and the inclination, and the proximity (I'm guessing here), I saw some excellent exhibitions at the Morgan Library recently... bookbindings, Babar, and Paradise Lost. I don't know if all of these are still on, but I do recommend them. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats a possibility...the Morgan has a great drawing show and oil sketch show too...Modernist (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't get down to NYC as often as I'd like. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Liz, sounds like fun..Modernist (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine arts barnstar

		The Barnstar of Fine Arts
		message --------Cream horn------ (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You contrubute a lot to fine arts articles so i hereby award you with this barnstar

And once again Thank You ----------Cream horn------ (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that you can concentrate on positive work, and less of those lapses. Modernist (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Errrr... I just came here to ask what you make of this: [28]. It just boggles my mind... hope for the best, I guess... Lithoderm 18:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tunes

I guessing you will like these bo th. Talk later. Ceoil (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil, and for the Sopranos.....Modernist (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering what out next project will be; I'm thinking either Color Field or The Bathers; I know you like both, though I am open and think its about time that you make the call on what we should work on. Ideas? Ceoil (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Sopranos. Well spotted, my friend. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me think about some possibilities..the problem with Color Field is all of the Fair Use imagery makes things impossible, and the Seurat already has a broadway play...I'm leaning toward Pablo Picasso - my first choice, but there are too many copyright issues with his images also. These are high on my list:

• Claude Monet's Water Lilies
• Paul Gauguin, Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?
• Pablo Picasso Les Demoiselles d'Avignon
• El Greco, Opening of the Fifth Seal
• Henri Matisse The Dance (second version)
• Henri Matisse, Open Window, Collioure
• Pieter Bruegel the Elder The Harvesters
• Manet's Olympia
• Goya's La maja desnuda

Modernist (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Blue Nude

Agh, I've been sculpting a head all day, and can sympathize with Matisse and his broken sculpture... Looks like the beginning of what would ultimately climax in this. There are three images of appropriate size that I can find on the net. (outside of artstor... sigh) Which one do you think is the closest in color? I 'm leaning toward the warm one, no.3: 1, 2, and 3. Leave it to me to gravitate toward warm nudes...Lithoderm 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll leave the cold ones to Gericault. Lithoderm 04:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I figured....Modernist (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

All done. I uploaded both versions, and pictures for Madras Rouge and Woman Reading as a bonus... Lithoderm 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Litho, once again...brilliant..Modernist (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems somewhat redundant to have a partial list of works followed by a gallery in Henri Matisse. When I have more time I might make a List of works by Henri Matisse with a table, similar to List of works by Caspar David Friedrich... Lithoderm 18:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Might be very good...Modernist (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Lithoderm/List of works by Henri Matisse--- an idea of what it might look like. Because of Fair Use the paintings post 1923 will have to stay in their own articles... Lithoderm 23:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks great..I agree the Fair Use imagery would probably attract controversy and links to the seperate articles might have to suffice..long overdue for an artist like Matisse...thank you..Modernist (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

List of works by Henri Matisse is now up. Alternatively, we could cut the images out of the gallery and switch the FU rationale to the list.. Lithoderm 01:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the gallery is jam packed, can use some thinning out....The list is a very good idea....Modernist (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've read several references to an "experimental period" in his work sometime in the mid 1910s, but the article doesn't mention it and I can't find any more specific dates for this period, which would encompass works like Woman on a High Stool and View of Notre-Dame. Do any of your sources mention dates? Lithoderm 14:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm not sure - but he was heavily pissed about being overtaken by Cubism..and I think he was painting with a vengeance, that period from around 1908 through around 1915 is some of his best work..Modernist (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been a pleasure working with you

... on the Baptistin Baille article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, it's fun, I never heard of the guy till now...Modernist (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Favour

Could do me a favour with the caption for the Rossetti image on The Lucy poems. The point I want to get accross is how the idealistion of doomed feminity in early romantic poetry reached its peak with the Pre-Raphaelites, but i'm not sure how to best put it. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil, I am out the door...I will try later when I come back this evening....Modernist (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Painted as an homage to his late wife, Elizabeth Siddal and to Dante's unrequited and lost love Beatrice". Just perfect, and so appropriate. Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it worked...Modernist (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Les Demoiselles; do you have access to questia. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm winging it for now, based on a lot of Picasso books...I'm gonna write on 1905-1906 in the history section next. Then add refs. A section after history about the Reaction to the painting/ opposition/ etc. Then a section on it's impact and importance to modern art.Modernist (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Mail sent, but yeah its much easier to write from a book on your lap. I've asked Ty if he's interested, so fingers crossed. I wont be adding anything for a week or two until Lucy is sorted, but after that....leave the background and description for me, these are the sections I most enjoy working on. Ceoil (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah I've already borrowed some of Ty's insights and handiwork from Fauvism; he's totally important to that article, I was gonna add another one of Ty's finds to the history section...I guess it's beginning to get underway..it will take a lot of time, background and description for you..Modernist (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Two months seems to be about the time it takes. Ceoil (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Tune

[29]. Post Valentine tune. [30] Ceoil (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...Modernist (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Interaction painting

Deletion procedures are one of the things that helps maintain the myth that there is a cabal that runs Wikipedia: db, prod and AfD each have different rules as to who may remove them. I won't tell anybody you did it, but an article's author is allowed to remove a prod tag. We will probably land up having to take the article through AfD. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, truth is I don't pay too much attention to the various complexities of AfD procedures, although I should by now, so my mistake...although I'll probably see you at the AfD for this one...thanks..Modernist (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative counter

I noticed on User talk:Interiot that you were experiencing the same problems with the edit counter as I was. I've located another edit counter that you may want to try, if you haven't already found it. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciated...I hope the wannabe Kate is fixed, soon, oh well...Modernist (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pop art

Disambiguation is used to resolve naming conflicts were there are two or more articles that could potentially use the same title. Disambiguation hatnotes are not spam they are used to navigate from a primary topic to secondary topics with the same title. See WP:DISAMBIGUATION#Disambiguation links for the guidelines and more info. --neon white talk 23:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guideline, disambiguation is not about linking related topics, it's resolving naming conflicts only. These three subjects are known by the same title therefore we provide a way for users searching the term 'Pop art' to get to the article they are searching for which could be either of the articles. I hope this helps. --neon white talk 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not gonna delete em again...but someone else probably will...Modernist (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the hatnote should link to Pop art (disambiguation), which I've now done. Ty 01:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of the existance of the disamb. page (it should have been linked all along) I had considered creating one but as the art movement was unarguably the primary topic and the other two pages i was aware of where secondary topics i judged it unecessary and that hatnote links would work. Obviously as there appears to be a third secondary article a disamb. page is needed. --neon white talk 19:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alls well that ends well...Modernist (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

New article

(Cross posted here and to Johnbod's talk page) I just created The Concert Singer. I'd appreciate any help you can give me in expanding it. Raul654 (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do what I can..and I'll ask JNW..Modernist (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In Response

My signature, the lack thereof being the stated reason for the deletion of my first post, was included in my most recent edit to "art appropriation." I also cited my source, the Oxford English Dictionary, which is a reviewed, edited, and highly respected source. It is unfortunate that such incorrect definitions are posted on Wikipedia, and because of misleading information, I will continue to direct students to credible sources, not Wikipedia. Arthistorian16 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)arthistorian16 and artist

As per the article, Appropriation (art), which credible source would you direct your students to, for an understanding of appropriation, in art? Can you please direct me to that credible source? If the Oxford English Dictionary, please tell me -- what does it say? Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Milton Resnick Image

I own the painting. You do not decide, I do! If I want to remove it, leave it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjam1980 (talk • contribs)

Frankly I don't care what you do. Just don't put the vase there, and sign your comments. Modernist (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Neal Turner

It appears to me that the artist himself created this article...Neal Turner What are your thoughts on the notability of him? I can find very little on Google apart from his own primary sources Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he is a particularly notable artist...mildly notable, he seems to exhibit his work in minor venues in France and in Florida...I see that you tagged it, it seems okay...Modernist (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

This sort of "external image box" would seem to be a viable alternative to fair use images. Just something I ran across, thought you might like to know of... Lithoderm 20:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Worth keeping in mind..thanks. Modernist (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also a bit skeptical about the recent inclusion of Christmas decorations in Light sculpture... and wanted your opinion before I reverted. Lithoderm 06:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:NOR + WP:V. Any unreferenced material can be removed. Ty 06:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just an idea of how it works... this would completely circumvent any arguments over Fair use...Lithoderm 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Works discussed in this section
	Self Portrait (Year) by Foo, which was extremely influential upon the work of Foo-2
	Snail (Year), by Foo-2, much influenced by the work of Foo

Nice, right now the hunters are quiet...what I'm wondering is what to do about galleries..that include Fair use images..We seem to be coming to some kind of truce over Fair Use in articles with lots of text...Ty suggested tables as an alternative to galleries. The CDF list is very cool, but as you know the Matisse list stops after 1923...the problem with this template is it is so ungainly. Its too roundabout a way to just look at a picture...Modernist (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at List of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci? It would seem to suggest a way to incorporate "significant commentary" about the artwork into a list article. Lithoderm 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I do like it, and if needed I'll use it..A good way to get newer works into the story..Modernist (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a good looking list, but all hell would break loose if it were pictures of De Kooning, or Pollock, Rothko, Still, Kline, Hofmann, Motherwell, Stella, Noland, Kiefer, Nicholas De Stael, Diebenkorn, et al..Modernist (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather ungainly, but you're right about hell breaking loose. Ty 04:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And it is ungainly..I think the gallery is the best solution, it is neat, clear, upfront and for paintings it is essential, and I suspect it is the correct solution - in moderation...Modernist (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Neal Turner Article

I was wondering why this, from Wikipedia, does not apply to the article on Neal Turner:

Notability is not temporary Shortcuts: WP:N#TEMP WP:NTEMP

If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence...

The question of notability was resolved when the article on Neal Turner first appeared in Wikipedia, and the artist was deemed notable at that time. Also, as I am not related to Neal Turner and do not find any reason for a conflict of interest, how do I have the conflict of interest tag removed? Thank you for your help - Ulyssescoat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulyssescoat (talk • contribs) 13:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow....I don't believe this BS...take it somewhere else...Modernist (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way - having your paintings in a movie as props - which is extremely common, does not an encyclopedic notable artist make, especially when your name does not appear prominently in the film's credits. Modernist (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

BS? Is that necessary? An artist must be a member of The Maison des Artistes to be listed in Artistes Contemporains, as Artistes Contemporains belongs to the Maison des Artistes, and to belong to the Maison des Artistes one must be a recognized artist in France. Search for "Turner" on Artistes Contemporains to find Neal Turner's info. I have linked to it in the article on him as well. Ulyssescoat (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You know this is REALLY BORING pal..You are not listed as an artist there, I suppose you OR YOUR GALLERY joined Maison des Artistes and there is a link to your modest nearly non-existant bio...Modernist (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a listing for "Turner Neal".[31] Maison des Artistes is the official registration site for professional artists for things like social security.[32] Ty 15:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. Ty 15:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Francis Bacon

Thanks for watching my back. Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help...Modernist (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for fixing that image caption on "Pop art." I was having a difficult time with it. Bus stop (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem..Modernist (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

parkin these [33] [34]

My Last Warning

Dear Modernist, I don't want to be blocked so I take seriously what you say. I think the safest thing for me to do is never add to talk pages and if I find my additions to content pages deleted, just accept it. My wiki-nature does appear to be confrontational which is not good - I know Rochester's maid in 'jane eyre' tells jane , 'That's his nature - and we none of us can help our natures.' Profound, that. Mostly what gets deleted on wikipedia deserves it. From now on, I will only add to content if I feel I have something to add and then leave it to its fate.Sayerslle (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Pluralism

I agree that the artistic climate remains pluralist. As for "everything still goes" I'm not so sure. There's been a whole lot of land-grabs since the 60s, and the artistic micro-nations are smaller than the old empires, but they have their own currency and flags just the same.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I do agree that in reality only certain things still go. Modernist (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucy

Thanks Modernist, thats the plan anyway at least. As you say, onwards! Ceoil (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pong. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway project? taskforce?

I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project or taskforce to improve content related to his life and works, and have proposed the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Ernest_Hemingway_project. Please share your thoughts there! kilbad (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Right back at you

I'm honored & downright speechless. I can only say thanks, but I should have beaten you to the draw:

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For outstanding work in the fine arts articles. Don't know when you find time to do it all--every time I check my watchlist you've been all over it! Ewulp (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you... - whenever I see your work, it's always good...Modernist (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

• TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
• Stevewunder (talk · contribs) and Kjaer (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
• SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Snowded (talk · contribs) and Idag (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward

Noel Coward has been promoted to FA. Thank you for support and encouragement! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well deserved, congratulations...Modernist (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Picasso

Sorry its taking me so long to get to this; I'm just totally absorbed with Lucy. She taking shape again now, might only be a week or two or so, thanks for being so patient. By the way, my impression is that you are about as un-Ayn Rand as they come. I, certainly, would be. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as Ayn Rand goes I just shrugged....Picasso on the other hand, we'll get there, I'm doing some reading. I'm watching Lucy's progress and it seems to be getting built, it looks like a good working crew now, although I wish all the poems with the red ink had individual pages also...Modernist (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is one red left, but it'll be blue by the time we get back to FAC. Hopefully! Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Cross fire

You got caught on Ottava's SJ FAC,[35] but it was just an abjector bitching, not personal. Ducks back, there is an apolpgy on F&f's talk. Ceoil (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil, appreciated your explanation, and Fowler's apology is ok....man oh man, I'm glad I wasn't around earlier, the bitching over there is ludicrous...This line from For What It's Worth by Buffalo Springfield comes to mind - There's battle lines being drawn Nobody's right if everybody's wrong... Modernist (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

He, thats perceptive; Neil Young's Ambulance Blues sprung to mind for me. The funny thing is that there is no well explained way to support that I can see. I do as you do when supporting; short and sweet, no gushing. Anyway, don't let this bother you. Ceoil (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a better anology; Wheat Field with Crows. Look at where the roads goes. How apt, har. Ceoil (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The road to nowhere...yeah, that's good...Modernist (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Salutat

Thanks for the work on Salutat. I figured a note on JNW's page would be enough to get all the art folks' attention :) Raul654 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good project :)...Modernist (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Libby Booth

I am very new to wikipedia as well and hope I am doing this correctly.

A few weeks ago you helped to approve the deletion of an article I wrote on a local artist named Libby Booth.

Not only did this article take me a very long time to write (as I said, I am new to this), but I was quite annoyed that it was removed so quickly by simply "googling" her name to see if she is a notable artist.

Perhaps I am naive about how this sight works, and perhaps I need to explain my own credentials in writing this.

I am a history professor who has lived in the Central Michigan area for nearly 25 years. Booth is by far the best artist I have ever seen in all of this time, and in terms of her local notability, she is considered the top artist of the Michigan tri-city area and is hopefully going to be known nationally quite soon.

While her name may not produce many google hits, this is NO WAY reflects how popular or well known she is in this area.

Outside of publishing books, I have published over 20 professional encyclopedia articles and am well aware of who should or should not have documentation about their careers and life.

This whole evaluation and deleting process seems rather haphazard (perhaps it is not and I am naive about this format), but I would appreciate it if you could possibly remove this article from its current deleted status.

I would really like to contribute more to this site in the future, but this initial experience is leaving me very frustrated.

Any advice or comments?

Sincerely, Dr. Joel A. Lewis

Department of History Saginaw Valley State University

Trouble brewing

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 10, 2009 Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Next Friday will be a busy day, all hands on deck...thanks! Modernist (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the FAC just now; pity, since then both Outriggr and Lith have left. O well. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Litho turns up now and then; maybe you might try stirring outriggr back - we can use another hand...Modernist (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll need them both. I think I'm more or less done with Lucy at this stage, outside of light copyediting. I won't get the chance to dig down at content on the Picasso for about a week or so, but will tinker between now and then. Its been a depressing month on wiki, be good to get back to stress free content only. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I need a few days off myself..Modernist (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling well. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. Oh I am so sorry. I know exactly how you are feeling. You have all my sympathy. :( Kafka Liz (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always tough..thanks..Modernist (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You will not see me back full time until late in May. After that I am going on the KIIS program to Munich, so I may not be back full time for long. Wikipedia was getting to be the Terrible Trivium. Sorry about your cat. I've never had one, but felt really awful when my guinea pig died. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Saddened

I am sorry to hear about your loss. Whether we lose close relatives or pets, we go through the same stages of grief.

Cats, who centuries ago signed their compact for living with humans on the condition of independence, would of course be perplexed by this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks F&f, yeah, they are enigmatic; although she probably would understand why I'm sad today...or at least I think so..Modernist (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think she would. I knew one kitty who mourned the loss of his brother for several weeks. He made "crying" sounds and would circle around the other cat's favourite spots. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they can be intensely smart and psychic little friends...no wonder its raining today..Modernist (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote above was written in a hurry and didn't come out right. Your word "enigmatic" is more apt. I suppose I was trying to say that cats are enigmatic even in the way they mourn and might scoff at any notion of stages of grief.

I have noticed enigmatic behavior, for example, during the last week, when one of our cats has been away. Although there is no obvious sign of depression in the other four, their roughhousing has almost entirely stopped. Similarly, when I go away and return, none of them ever shows up at the front door to greet me; but, if I then—in my jet-lagged state—go straight to bed, I find myself upon waking up, like Gulliver in Lilliput, quite unable to move. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Over the years we have lost cats and dogs, to accident and illness. Each animal has been a source of great comfort and love, and each deprivation of their companionship is a blow answered only with tears. How fortunate we are that they deign to let us take care of them! Fondly, JNW (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone...I'm surprised at how hard it hit me today. I guess she was one of the family for a long time...I think I'll be ok...Modernist (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not being facetious, but of course we lost whiskey dog, dogriggr, and a couple of other siminar accounts i forget the names of now, recently too. Still, sorry to hear, Modernist. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The out riggr whiskey fiddler should come on back to track down errant infoboxes and out of step art pages; now that we need him....back..Modernist (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hes around alright, but undercover if you get my drift. Re out riggr whiskey fiddler, my understanding is that he used to drink the stuff more than fiddle with it ;) Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, when the raft starts drifting he's needed onboard; or something like that..Modernist (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your cat died Modernist. The last cat in my family that I had a connection with, well, it had grown up with me and when it died I was very sad. I become a Romanticist(?) nutjob when anything dies, and I still remember laying my deceased cat on its favorite place on the couch one last time (before proceeding to the garden).

I also want to correct Ceoil... there are no undercover operations... other than Mr. FierceBot, who tried to use force to correct Ceoil's image uploading habits, I have not edited under any name or IP address and plan to stick to that rule! But I really miss working on the art collaborations, and will look forward to what you guys do in future. –Outriggr § 01:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated, and glad to work with you too, you have been missed...Modernist (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your cat. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Over the years I've lost three myself. I wish I could think of something to say that might make it easier for you, but I can't. Each time it happened, for about two weeks thereafter, I was varying grades of miserable. I tend to get a bit closer to animals than a lot of others, I guess. The question of whether they have souls as we think of them is one that has never been adequately answered, but I personally think that the kindness and love they have displayed and received will always be remembered and in some way real. And there are a lot of people, unfortunately, I'm not really sure I can say the same about. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Johnbod and to John Carter...appreciated...Modernist (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bacon

Modernist, I got burned out by the Lucy wars, and I just needed to go off and do something on my own without any hasel, if that makes sence. Hence Fragment of a Crucifixion which I intend to twin with the Picasso in priority over the next month or so. I'm not sure how you sit with Bacon, but having you on board as a co-author and co-nom would be great. I'm going to, <sigh> once again, ask Liz to co-both articles, though I imagine she might be fairly sick of me at this stage. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll help you as much as possible - however the next 2 months are very busy in real time for me...I'll try to do what I can....co-nom probably won't work till late May, maybe the Picasso then..Modernist (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Late may is fine, no hurry with either. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Image publication date

FYI. You're mentioned: Template_talk:PD-US#Published_definition. Ty 22:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Salutat

On April 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salutat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

3

Will Jamesons do? Tis grand stuff!

Watch you know what. I'll look after. Ceoil (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh and its my round. I'm a Guineass, JNW is vodka martini; what do you fancy? Ceoil (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Walker Black...or red...Modernist (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Modernist (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Modernist; how did the whiskey go? Are you still able? Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Went down smooth...Modernist (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If you celebrate it...

Happy Easter. Or Happy Passover, or just a happy weekend. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Liz...Eastover I guess...Modernist (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Getty Program

Hi. I figured you'd be as good a person to ask about this as anyone, so: what do you think of the recent contributions of User:Mybihonteem? Valuable or self-promotional? In particular, I noticed links were just added to artists' biographies leading to library records - are these useful? Thanks for any light you can shed on this. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Getty system seems marginally useful; I'd question whether or not it would be construed as spam, for now it seems like marginal information...I started a thread here: [36] to get more opinions. So far it seems to be okay with other editors from other comments there...Modernist (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot for weighing in and starting a wider discussion on the subject. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you...Modernist (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute in Anti-art

Hello. You placed a template which says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" at the top of the article on Anti-art but it is not clear to what discussion you are making a reference to on the talk page. Is what you call "note bombing" supposed to be the problem of neutrality ? If so, could you please make the issues of neutrality you see in "Note bombing" clearer and in any case could you please make all this clearer by naming the section about the dispute with a clear name such as "neutrality dispute" for example. Thank you. Armando Navarro (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you talk about Rodchenko's monochromes and the incohérents' foreshadowing of it without mentionning anti-art once in the monochrome article ?

From the Wikipedia style guidelines :The "See also" "may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Armando Navarro (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

While see also can be useful (and I use it too) it is usually just so much wasted space...Modernist (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Varvara Stepanova: Lecture on Constructivism, 22 December 1921.In: Peter Noever: Aleksandr M. Rodchenko - Varvara F. Stepanova. The Future Is Our Only Goal. Munich: Prestel, 1991, pp. 174-178. "From here, Constructivism proceeds to the negation of all art in its entirety, and calls into question the necessity of a specific activity of art as creator of a universal aesthetic."
2. ^ "I reduced painting to its logical conclusion and exhibited three canvases: red, blue, and yellow. I affirmed: this is the end of painting." - Alexander Rodchenko.
3. ^ Rodchenko, A. and V. Stepanova (1975) [1920] 'The Programme of the Productivist Group', in Benton and Benton (eds), pp. 91-2. "1. Down with art, long live technical science. 2. Religion is a lie. Art is a lie. 3. Destroy the last remaining attachment of human thought to art. . . . 6. The collective art of today is constructive life."

Armando Navarro (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And if Rodchenko had stopped making art after 1921 I might not think that the above was utter nonsense...He made art until the 1950s...His wife Stepanovas aesthetic drivel is still drivel...the guy stopped painting, turning to collage, photography and design..please! Sadly to quote Peter Schjeldahl Having dashingly declared painting dead in 1921, the marginalized Rodchenko painted pictures of sad clowns. Modernist (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Pam Meecham and Julie Sheldon. "Modern art: a critical introduction". Routledge, 2005, p 148 : "Rodchenko was disillusioned with easel painting which he in fact 'gave up' in 1921 to concentrate upon the relatively mechanised processes of photography, photomontage and graphic design. For him 'art has no place in modern life', but photography, particularly experimental photography as opposed to 'connoisseurial photographs', was the ultimate anti-bourgeois, anti-art practice."
• J. M. Bernstein. "Against voluptuous bodies: late modernism and the meaning of painting". Stanford University Press, 2006, p. 247 :"The anti-art moment of modernist works, the moment that Duchamp and Rodchenko attempt to make complete, enacts art's desire to be world and not art; but only as art, as semblance, can art evince that desire, perform it."
• Larry Shiner. “The Invention of Art: A Cultural History”. University of Chicago Press, 2003, p. 256.“If the provocations of Tzara seem merely naughty and those of Breton overly esoteric, the anti-art declarations of the Russian constructivists were potentially of greater social importance, given constructivism's roots in marxist theory and its opportunity to help build a new society.” (...) ""The spell of painting was broken and ""construction"" had taken its place for artists such as Aleksandr Rodchenko, Vavara Stepanova, and Lyubov Popova, who combined it with socialist commitment to become leaders of the First Working Group of Constructivists. One of their early manifestos declared:

1. Down with art, long live technical science. 2. Religion is a lie. Art is a lie. 3. Destroy the last remaining attachment of human thought to art.... 6. The collective art of today is constructive life. (Elliot 1979,130; Lodder 1983,94-99) And what should take the place of "art"? Construction. One should simply participate in producing a useful object."

Armando Navarro (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So much rhetorical crap, blah, blah, blah, - Rodchenko returned to painting - so much for the end of painting - have you seen his three monochromatic paintings? They look like Ellsworth Kelly, Brice Marden and they most definitely look like art....Modernist (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If the sources are reliable, which they seem to be, then their content can be included + any reliable source with content which refutes them, if any exists. It would be best to conduct this on the article talk page, and in fact to copy this conversation to there. Ty 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved content to the article Talk page...[37] Modernist (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

why are you picking on me!? I'm just reincluding what was removed a while ago.