Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Minimalism

Minimalism edit

File:Dan Flavin, ohne Titel (to Bob and Pat Rohm), 1970.jpg

One of Dan Flavin's lighting tube installations

This image shows a famous example of minimalism, an art style where the work is stripped down to its most fundamental features and core self expression. The picture features a famous example of the style by Dan Flavin, a 20th century American artist. This should be a featured picture because it is sharp, clear, eye-catching, good resolution, and appealing to viewers with interest in art.

Nominate and support. - GoOdCoNtEnT 05:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ARe we cleared on copyrights on this image? Lots of artists have claimed that photographs of their works are considered derivative works of the original artistic work, requiring permission from the copyright holder or else falling into fair use. We can't have fair use for a FP, so we need permission from the artist or whoever holds the copyright in the work. Also, the picture itself isn't that hot: kind of blurry at full res. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The artist is dead and this file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Therefore, it is ok to use it as a Featured Picture. And the picture is not blurry at 1000px which is a requirement for featured pictures. --GoOdCoNtEnT 05:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The artist being dead doesn't means much. Different countries have different regulations, but a good rule of thumb seems to be that copyright expires 70 years after the death of the artist. The license of the photo does not supersede the copyright of the installation, I suspect it is thus wrongly licensed. --Dschwen 07:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - A better rule of thumb is that copyright expires X years after the death of the artist, where X is the number of years since Walt Disney died. Stevage 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hahaha, would be even funnier if it weren't so true. But I guess in this case you mean copyright expires after X+1 years ;-) --Dschwen 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Not interesting, wierd for the sake of wierd. I know it illustrates a real form of art, but this is not an example of wikipedia's best work. HighInBC 23:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per lisencing and picture quality comments above. --Tewy 04:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 01:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]