Talk:Brushstrokes series

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brushstrokes series/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 03:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Will review, comments to follow in the next couple days. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Interesting article, looks good thus far. A few comments on the lead and first section.
• "The series is considered a satire or parody of gestural painting." Might want to note who considers it, the painter or critics (or both)?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• "The works in this series are linked to those produced by the gestural painting style" Is there a better way to word this? i.e. "produced by artists who use the gestural painting style"?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Might want to link the artists in the first paragraph of "Background".
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Later he produced an 8-print Brushstroke Figures" Should this be "eight-print"?
  • Yes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Check for consistency in capitalizing "Abstract Expressionism".
• Might want to double check the ellipsis use for compliance with MOS:ELLIPSIS. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I have it now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for your patience, resuming review:
• "The satirical element of the Brushstroke was obvious to many because it is a calculated presentation of the spontaneous gestural works of the day." Is there a good way to keep the same tense here, to avoid the "was... is".
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• In the first paragraph of "Details" you use "depict", might want to try for some more variation.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• "it was Pollack who brought dynamic movement to the canvas in the 1950s" This is the first mention of him, so you might want to introduce him, or at least add a link.
  • He is already linked above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ahh, I see what the problem was now ([1]), I hadn't noticed the typo either. I had done a control+f for "Pollack" and didn't get any other hits. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• " in works such as" occurs in consecutive sentences, might want to rephrase one.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• " He expropriated the most basic element of Expressionism in his own style both in painting and in sculpture." Is the use of the capital correct here?
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• In the last paragraph of "Details" and "Critical response" you should probably identify who you're quoting in text.
• The last paragraph of "Details" doesn't seem to flow very well to me. I know that's a pretty vague comment, (I hate when reviewers are vague) I'll reread it again later and try to explain my thoughts better. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it any better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, I think that cleared things up, passing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger discussion

Oppose All There is no reason to merge the pages that all have sufficient encyclopedic content to merit their own pages. Merging because of a repeated image is senseless.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support all This is a series and it doesn't make sense to write to separate out each work in the series for a short individual article. Merging "Brushstroke series", with the separate the works in the series (such as Brushstrokes, Yellow and Green Brushstrokes, and Little Big Painting that all use the same non-free image by Dick Giordano: File:Brushstrokes source.jpg to explain the "source") would remove the needless repetition of a non-free image across articles on essentially the same subject. (Giordano's work was also in Big Painting No. 6 but I removed it, reducing to four uses of Giordano's copyrighted image.)

Further, the use of this image fails the Non-free rationale—the copyrighted image is not discussed sufficiently in each text to justify the Non-free rationale, but only mentioned in passing in the articles.

Also, the individual articles have other copyright problems. Extensive quotes, including those in the footnotes are used in these articles that violate this. Merging these article would hopefully reduce the need for these excessive footnotes.

The editor of these article has said elsewhere: "My problem, is I need to store the source quotes somewhere for a few months until I can go to FAC." In other words he is using these articles on wikipedia to store copyrighted quotes for future use.[2] Mainspace articles on wikipedia is not a place to "store th source quote". Merging these articles would make sense and remove the need for excessive mainspace quotes of copyrighted material. MathewTownsend MathewTownsend (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

ps I removed it from Big Painting No. 6; if it is put back, I propose this be added to the list. (I think the article is improved with out non-free image by Dick Giordano. Puts the focus more on Leichenstein's work. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning support Much of the material is duplicated. Free-use considerations also favour a merge, & reduced use of non-free images. But the status quo is acceptable. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support adding Big Painting No. 6 to the series - as one of the series; A lot of good work has created all of these articles by the way...Modernist (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Don't Merge the Pages; Remove the Image I think this image should only appear in one article, probably the Brushstrokes article. Other articles could link to it. I think each painting warrants its own article. I see no point in merging articles. Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would support this proposal. This might prompt editors to expand on and explain in the text how Dick Giordano's work actually relates to the Brushstroke series - which is necessary for a proper Fair use rationale. In the articles above, the image of Griordano's work is used instead of an explanation in the text, thus failing to fulfill the Fair use criteria. MathewTownsend (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Truth be told I agree with Bus Stop also about the overuse of Dick Giordano's work and for that matter all the other cartoon references - Lichtenstein litigated those issues years ago; and I see no reason why everytime we see one of his paintings there is this - hey look - he copied something. Although I can still support one article about the Brushstroke paintings (which I like) I am ambivalent about separate articles; either way...Modernist (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Modernist—I don't think it has to do so much with litigation. In truth I don't think any of the articles on paintings by Lichtenstein should include supposed "source" images. (I realize you already said pretty much the same thing.) I think such inclusion works at cross-purposes with the article. The presence of such images too-persuasively presents a single-minded interpretation of the art to the viewer. We don't find this practice at Warhol for instance, where the image of a "Campbell Soup Can" would arguably be even more justified by an even closer sort of verisimilitude to the work of art. Images function differently from verbal content in articles. I think we can talk about source images and even link to them. One bizarre idea that occurred to me is to have an article on Sources for imagery in Lichtenstein paintings. It could serve as a repository for linkage purposes. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Over the years I've been in several arguments over that issue. Personally I find it obnoxious. One source can tell the entire story - end of story...Modernist (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A question would be whether these paintings should remain in separate articles or be presented to the reader in one article. I tend to think individual paintings should be presented separately. How does the argument for merging several Lichtenstein paintings into one article address the different treatment of Jasper Johns' painting articles such as Map (painting), Three Flags and White Flag (Johns painting)? I think there are several paintings employing the "map" motif and several "flag" paintings. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• If the object of the Brushstrokes series is to describe the series, then all of the "series" material should be merged to the main article. This would enable the reader to compare the individual works in the "series", and understand visually what the "series" is all about. It would also remove the need for a "filler" image, another non-free image File:Autumn Rhythm.jpg by Jackson Pollock used in the Brushstrokes series, further reducing non free image use in these articles. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend—I am unconvinced there is a "brushstroke series" except on the most superficial level. His concerns need not be understood as being confined to the representation of "brushstrokes" any more than Warhol's Campbell soup can paintings were confined to one flavor of soup. Ditto for Jasper Johns' "target" paintings or "flag" paintings. We don't have to write articles on all paintings seemingly belonging to a group, or "series", but it is I think preferable to write articles on individual paintings than to subsume all such paintings into overarching headings such as "brushstroke series". Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm working off the assumption that the series article, also mainly by Tony, is correct to begin "Brushstrokes series is the name for a series of paintings produced in 1965–66 by Roy Lichtenstein. ..." - which many of the quotes in the article seems to endorse. Assuming the "series" exists as such (and if not, or it is in doubt, the series article needs rewriting) then the question is do we also need the individual ones. I'm leaning to "no", at least in the long run. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to Modernist here, if they are good paintings they are not going to be easily explainable, and yet some people will say "yes, they are great, and here is exactly what they mean." Ridiculous. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bus stop, you may very well be right. The whole thing for many many articles on Lichtenstein is set up by {{Roy Lichtenstein}}. Image if this is done for every artist of any mention! Maybe it will pump up the sales for Lichtenstein to have so much about him on wikipedia! No such thing is done for Jackson Pollock who's an infinitely more important artist that Lichtenstein. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

He's having a big show in Chicago - hence a certain editor in a certain project decided to swamp us with new articles about paintings - many of which are valuable and worthwhile; while some are inviting disagreement. I was refering to this [3] - a few months ago - that I have seen time and time again...Modernist (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh! This kind of thing shows how wikipedia can be manipulated. And Chicago has the highest murder rate in the US. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep your head down and watch the grass...Modernist (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Paintings by artist shows that it is not that I have done too many for Lichtenstein. I think it shows that most artists don't have as many as they should in comparison to the artists that garner all the attention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Truth is I agree with you Tony, and so far the articles you created are pretty good...Modernist (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the Fair Use drawbacks that we constantly encounter with 20th and 21st century works...Modernist (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you created them too, Tony. Any differences I've expressed are not meant to minimize the good content in the articles you've initiated on several paintings of Lichtenstein. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Look up "Brushstroke series" on google.[4] Aside from Lichtenstein, there are other artists who have "Brushstroke series", including Willem de Kooning. Also, there are a multitude of other paintings not mentioned in the "Brushstroke series". First is Green Face, Brushstroke series, then Asha Carolyn Young Brushstroke Series, then wikipedia's Brushstroke series, then Blue Brushstroke series by Marie Kazalia, then Yellow and White Brushstrokes, then Blonde (from Brushstroke Series) by Roy Lichtenstein etc. You get the picture. Everyone's auctioning off this paintings, even Amazon.com. Since apparently only a few of probably many hundreds of paintings considered to be in Lichtenstein "Brushstroke series" are included in the article, how were the few that were chosen selected? Also, what about the many other artists with "Brushstroke series"? Apparently, it's a common name. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the ambiguity, irony and complexity attached to the title Brushstroke Series - it should probably be renamed Roy Lichtenstein's Brushstroke Paintings. He also made brushstroke sculpture and a series called Brushstroke Figurative Series later in his career. As another aside - as much as I love Autumn Rhythm, 1950 by Jackson Pollock (one of my favorite works of art), it doesn't really have many brushstrokes and a Willem de Kooning c. 1957-1960 would be more appropriate as a source...Modernist (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering Jackson Pollock is known for Drip painting, including Pollock's work as an example in the article seems particularly inappropriate. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod—I'd like to respond to this post. An article on a painting does not have to be lengthy. In fact I think it is far better to have a succinct article than an article bloated with interpretations. This Picasso painting article (actually an article on an etching) would be an example. The good thing about these articles on individual paintings is that they serve as neat repositories of information on just that work of art in perpetuity. This is a nice article in my opinion. It is more lengthy. It contains the history of the painting but very little interpretation. On the other hand an article on a series of paintings I think encounters more difficulty in tracking each painting individually over time. I am not opposed to such articles. I think such articles can exist in addition to articles on the individual paintings covered by such an overview article. But I have to say that I find an article such as the Brushstrokes series article problematic in some ways. In the lead it says, "The series is considered a satire or parody of gestural painting by both Lichtenstein and his critics." In my opinion that is an awfully opinionated statement to make, especially in the lead. For every work of art there are tons of gossipy, interpretive opinions proffered. Talk is cheap. Even the artist's opinion or interpretation is but one opinion or deciphering of the meaning of the work. I find the article too gossipy. It seems as though every commentator got onboard with the same understanding: "The satirical element of the Brushstroke is obvious to many because it is a calculated presentation of the spontaneous gestural works of its day." But in general I think an article on a subset of an artist's output can represent a valid topic for an article, and it can exist separate from whatever articles may exist on components of that subset. This isn't a bad article. It is very objective. There is no interpretation in it. It can grow if more information comes to light in the future. Bus stop (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop - I have to disagree with you about both Picasso articles you cite - no image - we need images - this is visual art and it's a shame that it has become so difficult to access images of Picasso's work as well as other works by 20th and 21st century artists...Modernist (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There is supposedly allowance for fair use if the image is spoken about in the article. It would seem to me that the image is spoken about in the article if the article is on that painting. Bus stop (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, agreed. Non-free content:Images has a list of fair and non-fair use rationales. Agree that Griordano's work could have a legitimate rationale for Brushstrokes, the one work that Leichenstein could be considered to have copied. Perhaps a discussion of the copy, what elements besides a brushstroke that were copied and litigation would open the door to discussion of Griordano's work. Or an actual image of a brushstroke, of which there must be many on the Commons, could be used instead.) p.s. there is an unknown number of "other" paintings/works that are referred to as part of the "Brushstroke series". The Jackson Pollock painting in Brushstroke series is clearly out of bounds, never mind inaccurate. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was unclear and quite off-topic. The point I was trying to make was that the articles I linked to above on Picasso works[5][6] of visual art would seem to qualify, under fair use policy, to have images of the artworks that are the subject of those articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Brushstrokes series article should be merged into the Roy Lichtenstein article. I think as a general rule images of sources should not be included in articles on Pop art paintings. We don't find source material for James Rosenquist, Jim Dine, Tom Wesselmann or Andy Warhol in articles about them or their work. I don't see sufficient justification for the inclusion of images from advertising, comic books, or product packaging in such articles. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason? It is precisely free-use considerations that stops this in most cases, plus very short articles. This is not consistent with how we treat art articles from other periods. I don't agree anyhow. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wondering ... This is the only mention of Griordano in the article (aside from the picture caption that says the same thing):

The inspiration for the series was Charlton Comics' Strange Suspense Stories 72 (October 1964) by Dick Giordano which depicted an artist who was worn out emotionally after completing a painting. However, only the original directly references the comic strip. Although the Brushstrokes series had a brief timespan, the motif served as a theme in Lichtenstein's works for the final 32 years of his career.

This doesn't elaborate; just says the original "element" was copied. Was the "motif" the brushstroke that "served as a theme in Lichtenstein's works for the final 32 years of his career."? The picture caption (which is unsourced) says: "The source for the entire Brushstrokes series was Charlton Comics' Strange Suspense Stories "The Painting" #72 (October 1964) by Dick Giordano". - is this saying the same thing as the text? I'm unclear. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod—I think there are particular factors applicable here. The inclusion of imagery should serve a purpose. We don't just include imagery because it is tangentially related to the subject of an article. We should include the image of Bedroom in Arles at the article Bedroom at Arles. But ubiquitous imagery that bombards our visual environment is part and parcel what Pop art is about. It would be pointless to show the actual cardboard carton that Warhol's "Brillo soap box" is based on. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• See Olive Trees (Van Gogh series). This is about a series of paintings of olive trees by Van Gogh. I think the Brushstroke series would be much more interesting and convey more information to the reader if this same format was used for an encyclopedic article about the series. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend—you refer to the "same format". Can you tell me what "format" you are referring to? Bus stop (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Bus stop. The article on Van Gogh's paintings is on a series about a subject (olive trees). The article coherently explains the relationship between actual olive trees and the paintings. (Lichtenstein was interested in the painter's actual brush stroke, but there is no image of a brush stroke on the page.)

Van Gogh's article sets his olive tree interest in context of his life, his development as an artist, and provides a meaningful, in depth analysis of the paintings, showing the connection between them and how his style evolved. The reader can see the contrasts and evolutions on one page.

With Lichtenstein, there is no attempt to elucidate the evolution of the "brushstroke" in his career, or the meaning of "brushstroke", as Lichtenstein was interested in the actual painters brushstroke, not ultimately the comic panel brush stroke. Further, the reader must flip through several pages that are all in the exact same format(same non-free image by Dick Giordano in the upper left); any artistic evaluation on the other "brushstroke" paintings is buried in incomprehensible long quotes in the footnotes on the pages of the individual "brushstroke" articles. No attempt is made to integrate all this.

It's unclear whether there was a formal "Brushstroke series" and what was included. This issue is irrelevant with the van Gogh as it makes no such attempt to reify an "Olive tree series".

Both are good articles, but the Van Gogh article didn't spawn a series copycat sub articles that are all going to attain GA status also. Is this really best for the encyclopedia? Which article is more informative to you, Bustop? - Brushstrokes series or Olive Trees (Van Gogh series)? MathewTownsend (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Lot of discussion, but a lot seems off track. From an aesthetic point-of-vie the Brushstrokes, Little Big painting and Yellow and Green Bruchs strokes would merge in here quite nicely. Big Painting No. 6 stands quite well as its own article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Italics

TonyTheTiger and others, would 'Brushstroke series' be italicized? Most artist's major series are in italics, but has this one gained this formal title? Thanks. Randy Kryn 00:28, 22 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507132503/http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/frames.htm to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/frames.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)