Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

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

Different artworks? Different pages?..

[edit]

Hello editors,

I have a question about Follow my dreams page. It is about a hand-painted mural by the italian artist TVBoy in 2022 in the city of Barcelona. This mural was originally called "Super Alexia" where you could read in the background the phrase: "Follow your dreams" with the footballer Alexia Putellas stepped out painted in a Superwoman outfit with a cape clearly visible on her back. In 2023, due to the multitude of vandalism acts, the artist decided to redo the mural, but neither the phrase nor the drawing of the player were the same. You can see the clear differences with the 2022 painting: [1] and the 2023 updated painting: [2]

In the Talk:Follow my dreams I proposed to make different articles because the new painting of 2023 should be treated as a completely different one even if it is located in the same place and on top of the old painting. The painting and the message in the background is totally different as you can read in the article: [3]

Throughout history, many painters have painted over other paintings and they have never been treated as updates of these but yes as a different works. It is currently an active dispute with user Kingsif that recently moved the page (Super Alexia to Follow my dreams) and reverses the edits I made because he wants to fix the date of the old 2022 painting but the name "Follow my dreams" was created in the year 2023 not in 2022.

What do you think?

Op art vs. Trompe-l'œil

[edit]

The recent death of Günther Uecker brought to my attention the term Op art. I think its article should distinguish it from Trompe-l'œil and vice-versa. Can anyone here do that.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done that. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Op art should probably also be mentioned at Trompe-l'œil in a clarifying way.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

-02:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wadsworth Jarrell

[edit]

Wadsworth Jarrell has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TFA dates investigation

[edit]

Both FA that haven't run on the main page, and a bit more information on dates related to them could give some clues when to run them. A month range for when Beauty revealed or when Musidora was exhibited would help out. It doesn't have to be a specific date. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly? "Four versions of Musidora attributed to Etty exist in total, the first of which was exhibited at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition in 1843" - this has opened in June in recent decades, & probably did in 1843. As the article explains,Beauty Revealed wasn't exhibited until long after it was paintedm in 2008 apparently. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anniversaries give hints or reminders when to run it on the main page so FA don't just languish and never run. With 715 articles that are FA and have never run, it's possible that some will never actually make the front page. The page for William Etty has a very clear obvious date to run it (his birthday), and the exhibition date makes the most sense for paintings. Etty's The Combat ran last month roughly on the anniversary of its first exhibition in 2025, and the article was nominated in 2015. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harizotoh9, I really appreciate people tending to the thankless task of scheduling TFA's, but there is a feeling by some that using loose anniversaries as a scheduling mechanism is a bit meah, and perhaps glib. A better alternative would be a spreadsheet or sortable table, but just saying why you might have been slightly bitten here :( Anyway and best Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may be "715 articles that are FA and have never run", but almost none on paintings - perhaps just these two. Is nudity more the issue here? Both show naked breasts prominently. If we have just had an Etty recently, it may be best to leave a longish interval, and not worry about a specific date. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is true and indicates why a measure other than dates will avoid closeness. Ceoil (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs Playing Poker provenance/location

[edit]

Of the 152 specific works of painting listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts#Specific works of visual art only one work seems to be missing any significant provenance/location information: Dogs Playing Poker. It might seem like the fact that this is an extensive series is a valid explanation. However, Self-portraits by Rembrandt, Water Lilies (Monet series) and Wheat Fields all seem to have significant content in this regard.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have thought the same in wondering where the original paintings in this series are exhibited or collected. I fully expect them to end up in major museums at some point, and one or two to be among the most expensive artworks - they are that iconic of 20th century artifacts. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons (see commons:Category:Dogs Playing Poker (Coolidge)), only Poker Game has any provenance. It is listed as being in a private collection. I suppose we can add (private collection) to that image's caption. Peaceray (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why this is the only important work that we don't have any documenatation of either location or private collection status for almost all of them.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Sanguine § Requested move 8 July 2025

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sanguine § Requested move 8 July 2025, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ham II (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject

[edit]

Hello!

I propose a WikiProject with the working title of Art & Architecture Copyedits.

The proposed WikiProject has two main goals:

  1. To copyedit any articles related to Art & Architecture that have the copyedit or clarify tag, and
  2. To create a supportive, welcoming space for newcomers. Experienced editors are also very appreciated, especially for the proposal process, but the WikiProject, once created, will mainly be recruiting newcomers.

If you would like to join, please do comment below, and I'll ping you during the proposal to confirm your intent. I will be posting this message on all related WikiProjects. All experience levels appreciated! 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture name

[edit]

I don't do a lot of work on foreign soil. I have created an article for a sculpture whose name seems to be literally translated by the press as Against All Currents, but more idiomatically translated by the sculptor as Against the Tide. How should I handle the name of the sculpture.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Call to action regarding Jérôme Duquesnoy l'Ancien

[edit]

I was researching painters and sculptors at WP:VA. I went through all the current VA specific works of painting and sculpture during this research. There is one article that oddly points to a visual artist that has articles on 6 wikis but not ENWP. Creator of Manneken Pis  5 Jérôme Duquesnoy l'Ancien, who also seems to be known as Jérôme Duquesnoy the Elder, seems like he should have an article on ENWP. I am encouraging others to stub this guy out.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"l'Ancien" is "the Elder" in French; we should use Jérôme Duquesnoy the Elder. Or Jerôme Duquesnoy (I), as his son (exceuted for sodomy) is at Jerôme Duquesnoy (II).

Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnbod, Thx for the clarification. Is this guy close enough to your wheelhouse to stub him out. I have to imagine if he has articles in 6 languages, he is notable.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly notable, but I'm unlikely to get round to it for some time. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specific works for vital artists

[edit]

At WP:VA4 1 of the 10 sculptors and 6 of the 63 painters have no specific works listed as among the vital specific works of paintings, sculptures and other media. I was wondering if anyone here has opinions on what specific works would be the most important for consideration for editors to improve for each the following artists: Joseph Beuys  4, Antoine Watteau  4, Camille Pissarro  4, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec  4, Wassily Kandinsky  4, Marc Chagall  4, Gerhard Richter  4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger The vital articles lists stress me out for some reason (I think just the visual chaos), but a few suggestions for Beuys on individual works:
Richter and Kandinsky are difficult as most of their very notable work comes in the form of series, not necessarily individual paintings. Although there should definitely be standalone articles for Richter's Six Gray Mirrors (on long term view at Dia Beacon) and the article for Richter's 18. Oktober 1977 series could use some TLC given its importance. 19h00s (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd agree with those from Beuys. I Like America and America Likes Me is in my experience the image most often used in art history textbooks with just a single image of his work, followed by How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare. For general strategies for helping determine what the most important work(s) for any of these artists might be, I suggest maybe: 1) Check for notable work in the box at the bottom of their article like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Joseph_Beuys 2) Looking at page views of articles on their works like [4] which in this case seems to confirm the same three in the same order that 19h00s listed. 3) Check what other sources like Britannica mention, for example https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Beuys mentions only "one of his best-known actions, How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare." Asparagusstar (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:19h00s, VA has room for series. VA includes Wheat Fields  5, Sunflowers (Van Gogh series)  5, Water Lilies (Monet series)  4, Self-portraits by Rembrandt  5, and Bird in Space  5, as well as other series and sets of variations. Let me know what specific subjects you think are important even if they are series.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For Watteau, from my experience and checking a few books, The Embarkation for Cythera seems to be the work most often shown. Asparagusstar (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the biggest Richter/Kandinsky expert so I'd mostly leave that to others, but I do think the 18. Oktober 1977 series is due for expansion/improvement, it's been extensively cited as one of his most important, if not his most important non-abstract series. 19h00s (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I'm fascinated to see how the history - and critical legacy - of Richter's squeegee paintings is eventually rendered on Wikipedia. Thinking especially about Artforum's choice to put a Jack Whitten painting on the cover of the magazine in February 2012, a painting that looks quite a lot like Richter's squeegees but in fact predated Richter's technique by two decades. That issue of Artforum came out while Richter had a massive retrospective traveling from Tate to Berlin; it also contained a Benjamin Buchloh essay about Richter's paintings. The whole thing caused a bit of drama in art circles over "who did it first". The conversation has come up again over the past year with Whitten's retrospective at MoMA, I've read several curators and critics pointing out that Whitten developed the technique earlier.
All that is to say: art history is malleable, things change and we learn more about different artists. I'm very interested to see how that kind of history/narrative/evolution is eventually incorporated in the long term, and how those changes/developments are eventually incorporated into decision making around Vital Articles. 19h00s (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Massviews analysis, as eg here for Category:Paintings_by_Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec can give an idea, though the results can be skewed in various ways - big recent auction results etc. Johnbod (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnbod, What an interesting tool. I guess you can combine that with interwikis for a quick and dirty of what is vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Fledglings?

[edit]

In the course of researching Morris Park Aerodrome, I started User:RoySmith/drafts/The Fledglings and was surprised to discover I could find very little about the painting. If anybody can point me at some better sources, I'd be grateful for your assistance. RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need help understanding the importance of an image

[edit]

I am going to be borrowing a lens from Canon Professional Services to get a couple of pics for us. I am allowed to do an evaluation loan on almost any piece of camera equipment they sell for 10-days. Boating Party currently has a low res image, a high res image with a brown band and a crop of that at commons. It has a good shot to get a picture slot on DYK so I Canon is going to ship me a lens next week to take on the day of the August 7 Gustave Caillebotte lecture at the Art Institute of Chicago. I have gotten them to approve a 24mm/1.4 lens. I don't really need anything that wide for Boating Party, but I am also working on User:TonyTheTiger/Sandbox/America Window this, which is on the Art Institute apps Essential tour of 12 items to see. Currently, we have articles for 9 of the 12 items plus my Sandbox effort. The 12 are mostly no brainers. The 4 WP:VAs (A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte  4, American Gothic  5, Nighthawks (Hopper)  5, Paris Street; Rainy Day  5); 2 articles that are currently nominated at VA (Haystacks (Monet series), The Old Guitarist); three others that we have articles for (Assumption of the Virgin (El Greco), Improvisation No. 30 (Cannons), Bathers by a River), the America Window article I am working on that is of clear importance to me. There is a statue that I am not qualified to assess and then the final article is not of clear importance to me City Landscape by Joan Mitchell who once held the record for highest sale price at auction by a female artist. I am a bit surprised that this was chosen over a Magrite, Van Gogh or O'Keeffe. Maybe I should get a picture of this work too and create an article. Does anyone know the significance of this work and why it would be in the dozen works that are considered essential by the AIC? TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes on the Mitchell painting:
  • It was included in the Vanguard 1955 exhibition originating at the Walker Art Center, generally considered an important exhibition of the era (included painters like Richard Diebenkorn).
  • It seems to mark a transition period in her style, beginning to move away from the duskier, muted tones of her early period abstractions and starting to embrace brighter, more intense colors.
  • It is one of a number of her works from this period with the title City Landscape, presumably because it is meant to represent a specific city, most likely New York or Paris; she is quoted on the AIC page as saying her works are "landscapes", though visually abstract.
  • I don't know that much about this specific painting, but it does seem to occupy a special place in Mitchell's oeuvre as a transition-period work, and Mitchell is generally considered one of the most important post-war American artists. Not that surprised it was picked as essential by AIC tbh.
--19h00s (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:19h00s, Are you saying that an article with the title City Landscape should encompass a series?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don't see anything like this at joanmitchellfoundation.org. Maybe you are seeing a set of sketches or something (although I am not of the impression that she sketches her abstracts)?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an identically titled work by Mitchell that sold at Christie's last year. I'm running between off-wiki tasks rn so I'll answer more fully later, but I don't think this was a series, per se. She just seems to have used the same title for several works - I'd have to crack open some of the literature regarding her style/evolution to find the specifics on how many works had this title and how/if they're actually connected beyond sharing a name. 19h00s (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger I did some more searching - I can't find any references online to this being a defined "series" in the formal sense, but there are definitely multiple separate paintings with this title, all from the same period. I think to get the details on this someone will need to dig through some of the (many) books on Mitchell.
I did find some info on SFMoMA's website about the identical titles which references the work owned by AIC. The piece quotes curator Marin Sarvé-Tarr: "Mitchell titled several paintings from the 1950s City Landscape, pointing to the lack of distinction she saw between urban and natural environments. 'For Mitchell, natural landscapes and cityscapes were deeply intertwined in her experiences of the world,' says Sarvé-Tarr. 'She saw them both as ripe territory for painting.' " 19h00s (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:19h00s, I will be spending time at the Library soon. I was going to research Chagall's America Window. Everybody in Chicago is checking out the Caillebotte and Impressionist books at the library right now, so I will have to wait a few months to research him. I am not sure where City Landscape will fall in terms of future research. It sounds like you have uncovered a lot. If AIC thinks it is important, time will probably prove them right. I don't understand abstract expressionism so well anyways. I'll take photos of it, but since it is 70 years old, copyright is expiring some places, but it is probably either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, somebody else should probably tackle it. A high res file will get reduced so you could just screenshot this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the copyright of it all, I would also assume that Mitchell did not use copyright notices on her paintings (have never spotted a notice on the paintings I've seen irl). But notably the Joan Mitchell Foundation (JMF) did get into a copyright fight recently with LVMH. The Fondation Louis Vuitton hosted a traveling retrospective of Mitchell's work in 2022, along with a show putting Mitchell's work alongside work by Monet. LVMH then used Mitchell's paintings installed in the show as the backdrop for an ad campaign for Louis Vuitton, after JMF had rejected an earlier request to do so. JMF sent LVMH a cease and desist and the two parties eventually settled for an undisclosed amount, so there's no way to know for sure what would have happened had they made it to the evidentiary stage of any legal proceedings. (funnily, the Joan Mitchell show no longer appears on the Fondation Louis Vuitton's website, though the Monet-Mitchell show is still listed and describes the retrospective) 19h00s (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to copy two different lisences. I don't remember the other now, but regardless, you seem to be a great researcher and more knowledgeable about this subject than I. You should take a stab at this work. BTW, I have sent an inquiry to JMF regarding the various works under the same name.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is Chicago-born and an alumn of both a local high school (Francis W. Parker School (Chicago)) and college (School of the Art Institute of Chicago), so her work may have a special priority at the AIC. Her work is obviously valuable since she sells at $20 million. Maybe her work is our best abstract expressionism. Maybe they wanted a local. Cutting down to 12 works is no doubt difficult. If I were to choose an SAIC alum, I would have gone with Jeff Koons for the last spot. Among women, Georgia O'Keefe has been far more prominently presented in exhibitions (although I am realizing that Mitchell may be outselling her at auction now). I wonder if Mitchell's AbEx work is also gaining on Jackson Pollack AbEx works at auction.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With the caveat that I'd need to find more citations to back this up: I'd wager that Mitchell is in the top 3 most notable/famous AbEx painters. Pollock is essentially cemented as the most famous but even just in the past few months I've read contemporary critics citing Mitchell for her broad notability (Andrew Russeth recently claimed in NYT that Mitchell rivaled Willem de Kooning as America's greatest living abstract artist in the late 20th century). 19h00s (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notable works lists in Infoboxes

[edit]

At Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#How_important_are_VAs_for_biographical_subject_infoboxes, I got no feedback regarding adding WP:VA articles to Infobox notable works lists. User:Ceoil just brought my attention to a discussion at Talk:Caspar_David_Friedrich#Infobox_issues regarding a plethora of infobox issues including unsourced notable works lists. I spent quite a few hours this morning doing what I thought was handling notable works issues. There are 3 types of situations that I was dealing with: 1. Infobox with no notable works listed. For these I added all WP:VAs. 2. Infoboxes that only include VAs but not all of them. For these I rounded out the lists. 3. Infoboxes that included many works that were not VAs but excluded some VAs. For these I made a list that I will put forward soon for discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jip Orlando, Bluevestman, and Johnbod: Pinging the other Friedrich discussants.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. in a few cases, not only was there no notable works list at all, but also there was not even an infobox. I added the infobox with the appropriate VAs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, you have said above a few times "I basically know nothing about visual arts", and now you want to throw open the highly subjective call on what are "artist X's most notable works? I'm sensing busy work and careless, cobbled-together infobox lists. Ceoil (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely adding all VAs to infoboxes, unless the infobox has information suggesting there is some disagreement on what the most vital are for a subject (includes items not listed at VA). This is not subjective on my part. The subjectivity is the consensus of VA editors, but at least 4 people think these are vital for them to be listed at VA, so it is not just me and not random.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just seek guidance on what to do for infoboxes that contain items not listed at VA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This is not subjective on my part. The subjectivity is.." So it "is" subjective. I'm not opposed to the drive but urge caution and slow down.Ceoil (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is subjective in the same way that WP:FAs are subjective. It is a consensus of anywhere from 4 to 12 or 15 WP editors.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine Tony; overall I very much welcome your recent work & tks. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do you have any advice on how to handle infoboxes that have notable works that are not considered vital and omit works that are considered vital?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K. I added dozens of links to dozens of bios. User:Ceoil removed the vital article additions from Caspar_David_Friedrich due to previously discussed Talk:Caspar_David_Friedrich#Infobox_issues and the resulting consensus toward not having an infobox for this subject. User:Fram has removed them from Jan van Eyck and Peter Paul Rubens in favor of blanking the notable works parameter in well fleshed out infoboxes. This is a different issue. Fram, can you explain your decision to remove the vital articles from the notable works parameter. The edit summaries make it seem like you feel my choices were POV. I was including subjects listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts/Audiovisual_arts#Specific_works_of_visual_art. Is this objectionable?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify. There are 294 specific works listed. I have done them all except for the 9 fashion designs, 33 photographs, a handful of artists who use infoboxes that are not receptive to notable works, a handful of works without a known author, and 40 other works where I am considering what to do since the infoboxes contain notable works that are not currently listed vital articles. I would estimate that I have added or confirmed the pre-existence of 200 total works in the notable works parameter.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The infobox doesn't have to list notable works, and in the case of these two artists (and probably many other ones) there is such an abundance of notable works that it is better not to list any at all. The vital articles lists are rather random (and self-proclaimed "under construction" anyway), the choices of which paintings are the most notable for an artist are debatable, and should probably be discussed at the article talk page instead. I e.g. also don't agree that your edit at Dürer[5] was an improvement. Fram (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Fram, many fields in an infobox have some subjectivity and we always hope editors make reasonable decisions. The list of vital articles is always in flux, but it is directionally correct. You could definitely do worse than defining what is important from that list. In June, I used it to guide my trip through the Louvre. There are probably a bunch of ways to find an essentials tour of the Louvre, but I enjoyed the vital articles one. I know for some artists that I am familiar with there is some variation depending on the source as to which articles are the most notable/vital. I just decided to use that list as a reasonable set of instructions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits weren't unreasonable, but for some articles on my watchlist at least I think the previous situation was better. In which case, if you still think the change needs to be made, discussion on the article talk page is best. Using the vital articles list can't be a general guidance anyway, many artists don't have any article on the lists but still have notable works. And I would hate to go to the Louvre and not see the Madonna of Chancellor Rolin because some Wikipedia editors don't consider it a vital article. Fram (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fram, I don't think the infobox notable works parameter is for a comprehensive list, so I strongly disagree with the Dürer. Those lists even include elements that are not even notable enough to have articles. That parameter is suppose to teach you the short list of things that a person is noted for. Listing the sum of their work in that field is not appropriate.
    We only include 294 specific visual arts works of which 152 are paintings. So there can be no policy that notable works have to be vital to be included in the infobox parameter, but it is not unreasonable to say that all vital articles should show in these lists. No one who isn't VA3 has more than 4 vital specific works. No one who is not VA4 has more that 2 vital specific works. No one who is not VA5 has more than 1 vital specific work. Notable works are relative to the artist. Any artist at any level (even below vital) could have 3 or even 5 works for which he is most well known with none of them or only some of them being vital. For that person, whatever he is known for should be included in the parameter. This conversation is making me realize, I should just add the remaining 40 vitals to the bios even if they have non-vitals listed. I will get to that soon. I am happy to show up someplace to talk about Jan van Eyck and Peter Paul Rubens. I just think that place should be here for this issue. The issue is my general pursuit of adding all vital articles to notable works parameters. Even if there is disagreement on what is most notable for individual it helps the reader find at least a starter set of what that person is known for. If I wanted to have a hand in which additional works should be on that artists infobox, then the individual talk place would be advisable. I am only here to discuss whether adding VAs to all bios is something we should support.
    I would advise a Louvre first-timer like myself to take a guided tour and add in whatever else WP lists as vital. Then a wikipedia editor should go take selfies with articles he has had a heavy hand in just like he is at the Mona Lisa. Unless you plan on spending a whole day at the Louvre (which is could be worthwhile) that is a good first visit.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Durer is noted for much more than just two engravings though, he has e.g. made some of the most important and iconic self portraits ever, like the Self-Portrait (Dürer, Munich). You removed all mention of his paintings from the "notable works". Reducing an artists "most notable" works to the few which have, sometimes rather randomly, been added to the "vital" articles, is often not a good idea. The whole "vital atrticles" level 5 is a bad idea in any case. Fram (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fram, Please review MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It is not suppose to be used for exhaustive lists. We are trying to deliver "key facts at a glance" not send them off to navigate exhaustive list. The less information the better. Presenting his whole career in notable works is counter to what an infobox is for. You have converted the infobox into a see also section. The article already has such a section with those exhaustive list articles. I am going to revert the Dürer, because of your lack of understanding of what an infobox is for.
    You have at least twice associated the vital articles list with the word random. Do you understand that consensus is mandated for inclusion. People don't vote by throwing darts. Rather than misclassifying the selection process, can we discuss vital articles as a consensus based process. The selected items are included because at least 4 people believe that the subject is among the 50,000 out of over 7 million (less than top 0.75%) subjects most worthy of editorial focus on ENWP. How is that random. We are talking about consensus of between 4 and 12 or 15 editors. Adding two VA works that have achieved such consensus to Dürer, we are helping the reader by prominently placing works in the infobox that are likely to be subjects that the reader would want to be directed to as most prominently associated with the subject. It does not stop you from adding 2 or 3 other such subjects.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking to three lists is summarizing, it is not enumerating all these works. Removing "notable works" completely from the infobox for artists who have too many notable works is also perfectly in line with "infoboxpurpose", which states "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose". As for random, I am e.g. unable to find after which discussion Knight, Death and the Devil was added as a vital article. Fram (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is three lists that exhaustively enumerate his career providing a summary of his notable works. Exhaustive lists are not summaries. this edit marks the addition of Knight, Death and the Devil. Level 5 was created in 2018, IIRC, so the early list may have been a bit random, but most content has been reevaluated now. Do you have reason to believe that there would be consensus to remove this today?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I see that you added a Picasso sculpture to his infobox because it is "vital", which isn't noted on the talk page: it looks as if this one, which really isn't one of the most important artworks of the 20th century or of his career, was added randomly as well. It looks indeed as if the vast, vast majority of that list was created without any indication of where consensus was reached, and while many entries are no-brainers (no one would argue that the Ghent Altarpiece isn't a vital article), many others are indeed quite random, apparently just an idea of "this is a major artist, let's pick some of their works". If the list was created now from scratch, it would be quite different.
    There probably is a very good reason why we don't seem to have "known for" for e.g. pop artists or classical composers (the infobox just list to a discography or a list of compositions, just like our Durer article!). Fram (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I strongly agree with Fram on this, and think the main reason you are getting push back is that your basis, the vital articles list, was arbitrarily thrown together without much discussion and needs a lot more thought. Having scanned over the last week or so, its deeply flawed and no basis as a source for unilaterally updating artist's bios with definitive "major works". Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are saying exactly. WP:VA is a work in progress rather than anything definitive, but directionally correct. I'm interested in what is deeply flawed about the visual arts specific works list. We know there is no definitive list of greatest paintings anywhere. E.g., 100 Great Paintings is completely ridiculous. I don't know anyone who agrees with their choices for Lichtenstein or Warhol. VA is certainly not a definitive list. However, notable works parameters in infoboxes are generally not sourced and I am not claiming they are a source. I don't use any WP:ICs. Those parameters seem to just be filled in by well-intended editors. VA is a consensus of well-intended editor, which is better than a single well-intended editor. Nothing is etched in stone. I am just trying to add a bunch of generally agreed choices to the notable works parameter. You seem to be misunderstanding the issue. It is not whether I have the right lists. This is a parameter in which we present key facts regarding notable works. The current arguement is whether the notable works parameter is suppose to present comprehensive lists of career works or a short list of specific works. That it the argument regardless of what well-intended list I use. You have completely missed the mark because you have not talked at all about this choice. Are you saying Fram is right that we are suppost to use comprehensive lists of career works in notable works parameters.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the choices in Vital Articles are even directionally correct. You are repeatedly claiming they are and are spearheading a drive to modify artists' infoboxes as if they are "generally agreed" which they are not. My preference is that infoboxes do not contain any such parameter. Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's reset. The WP:LEAD, which includes the WP:INFOBOX (to the right of the LEAD on desktop and after first paragraph of LEAD on mobile) is supposed to be an editorial summary of the article. It is OK if the LEAD has no sources because it summarizes the main body where sourced content is required. The proper way to summarize an article is to present the important points of the main body. Technically, the proper way for me to update notable works parameters is for me to go through each article and determine what works are most notable based on the presentation of the main body. Using the VA list is certainly not equivalent to summarizing the main body of that artists bio. The LEAD and INFOBOX of an artist's bio are suppose to be summaries of the key facts of the body of each artist's article. I understand that what I was doing was not that.
  • We have very few fully fleshed out WP:FA-level artist bios. Until the body of each artist's bio is an FA-level summary of his life and legacy, summarizing it in the LEAD (including the INFOBOX) is problematic. So what was I doing. I was attempting to figure out a quick and dirty way to augment notable works parameters with content that is supposed to be an editorial consensus. Whether VA is "generally agreed" list is a different thing than saying it is suppose to be the best current approximation of an editorial consensus. Involved parties are suppose to look at the list and assess whether the current listings belong or should be displaced (via add/remove/swap nomination process).
  • The actual disconnect is not in which source list I am using. The proper procedure to fill in the list is to determine the notable works as a summary of the main body content. When I say directionally correct, I assume that most specific works at VA are works prominently presented in artist bios. I have never checked this. There is no correct list to use, no independent source of notable works.
  • None of this addresses the debate that we are having at Albrecht Dürer. The question there remains whether a notable works template parameter should include comprehensive listings of works or specific works. Right now it looks like in the absence of an agreement, we are going to include both.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to VA lists. I would say "arbitrarily thrown together without much discussion" and "deeply flawed" is a bit misleading for the specific works of visual arts elements. I feel that for the few artists that I have had enough editorial involvement with or knowledge of to assess, VA is pretty much correct (or directionally correct as I said). Comparing the VA listings for Warhol and Lichtenstein, I would definitely say those are directionally correct and way better than something like 100 Great Paintings. I have not studied art and don't know enough about most other artists to assess VA. If you were to redo the list with the same number of elements, what percent do you think you would replace?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chalk carving

[edit]
Notice

The article Chalk carving has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 12 years. No other language has an article from which to translate. WP:NOTHOWTO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive3

[edit]

There are only 17 specific works of paintings listed as Vital article level 4. Campbell's Soup Cans is one of those 17. It has lost its WP:FA status. I have restored it to a WP:GA, which was no small lift. It remains a WP:FFA. I am trying to restore it to FA status. Before I take another run at WP:FAC, I feel I need a WP:PR. In October 2023, it went 10 months at PR without any reviews. On July 8, I renominated it at PR. I need a reviewer.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am aware that if this project were going to decide the 17 most important paintings for Wikipedians to edit, the list might not even have a 50% overlap with our list, but this is an important set of works. They would probably all make the top 50 or at least top 100 if the list was decided only by people in this project.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:SNUGGUMS who stepped up a few hours after I posted this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive3

[edit]

Campbell's Soup Cans is a seminal piece of art that is a WP:FFA. It is one of 17 paintings listed at vital articles level 4 and one of 8 contemporary art works listed at vital articles level 5. Please feel free to comment on its current WP:FAC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen during the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack#Requested move 1 August 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen during the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack#Requested move 1 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 04:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI regarding notable specific works of visual arts articles

[edit]

With the Gustave Caillebotte exhibition here at Art Institute of Chicago, it came to my attention that ENWP only had 11 articles of specific works by Caillebotte until I created Boating Party, while FRWP has 31 specific works articles. I have not checked on how common this is, but I would imagine that for painters whose primary language is not English, there may be English works to create based just on the set of foreign works.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are some the same numbers for the French painters that Caillebotte collected:
Alfred Sisley: Category:Paintings by Alfred Sisley 37 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau d'Alfred Sisley 49 items
Pierre-Auguste Renoir: Category:Paintings by Pierre-Auguste Renoir 66 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau d'Auguste Renoir 96 items
Camille Pissarro: Category:Paintings by Camille Pissarro 22 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau de Camille Pissarro 33 items
Claude Monet: Category:Paintings by Claude Monet 86 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau de Claude Monet 119 items
Jean-François Millet: Category:Paintings by Jean-François Millet 13 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau de Jean-François Millet 32 items
Édouard Manet: Category:Paintings by Édouard Manet 85 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau d'Édouard Manet 99 items
Edgar Degas: Category:Paintings by Edgar Degas 23 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau d'Edgar Degas 66 items
Paul Cézanne: Category:Paintings by Paul Cézanne 66 items, FR:Catégorie:Tableau de Paul Cézanne 79 items

Here is a small sample of names that you could get involved in. I imagine that many non-native English speakers are in the same boat.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for neutral creation of biography: Susie Hodge

[edit]

Hello — I’m requesting help from a neutral, experienced editor to create an article on Susie Hodge (British author and art historian), as my own conflict of interest prevents me from doing so.

She has written over 150 books, many for major publishers including Thames & Hudson, Tate Publishing, Laurence King, Frances Lincoln, and Greenfinch. Her books have won awards, been selected in national press "books of the year" lists, and appeared on bestseller lists. She has also appeared widely in broadcast media (CNN, Channel 5’s Great Paintings of the World, Studio 10 Australia, WNYC), and given talks at the Edinburgh International Book Festival, Bath Literary Festival, Dallas Museum of Art, the Royal Academy (London), PUCRS (Brazil), and more.

Significant independent coverage exists, meeting WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG criteria. A draft with references is here: Draft:Susie Hodge.

Any volunteer willing to take on the creation or improvement of this article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Susie Hodge (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article about Nikolay Karabinovych – request for feedback.

[edit]

Hello! I recently submitted a draft article about Nikolay Karabinovych to Articles for Creation: [6].

Since this topic is related to contemporary visual arts and Ukrainian culture, I thought it might be of interest to members of this project.

Any feedback or review from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time! R2t573 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Veiled Christ about removing List of statues of Jesus from "See also"

[edit]

If interested please comment at Talk:Veiled Christ#List of statues of Jesus removed from See also, called "too general". The List of statues of Jesus page, distributed to its entries in February, 2023, immediately brought many more readers per day to the list and has provided sustained interest in the topic ever since. Please join the conversation if you'd like, maybe after browsing MOS:SEEALSO. The best thing coming from this may be the treat in store for editors who've never read or viewed the Veiled Christ. Be prepared to either scratch your head, have your mouth drop open, or just pick up a chisel and try to spend your life duplicating the statue, once widely believed to be created by magic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts&oldid=1306400836"