Talk:Hilton Kramer

Call to edit

Anyone care to go through the NYT obit and update this piece? Guess I could do it... The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Woo's inaccuracies

The page erroneously claimed that Kramer "tended to oppose" federal funding, based on a vague claim by Elaine Woo. William Grimes didn't say a word about federal funding. Tkuvho (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"He opposed federal funding of the arts for contributing to political correctness and the degradation of classic values in art."—Elaine Woo at the Los Angeles Times

"In its pages, Mr. Kramer took dead aim at a long list of targets: creeping populism at leading art museums; the incursion of politics into artistic production and curatorial decision-making; the fecklessness, as he saw it, of the National Endowment for the Arts; and the decline of intellectual standards in the culture at large."—William Grimes at the New York Times

"He plunged into acrimonious debate on cultural politics, staking out a conservative position in attacks on the artists and programs financed by the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and revisiting the political debates of the McCarthy era and the 1960s."—William Grimes at the New York Times

This is the edit that you made. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities are federal agencies. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that Grimes never said that Kramer "opposed federal funding". He opposed the way the funding was disbursed. Woo's phrase is ambiguous and can also be interpreted along the way of the position outlined by Grimes. If Woo really meant that Kramer opposed Federal funding, I think her claim is incorrect. Roger Kimball's piece surely does not say anything about Kramer opposing federal funding, and he should know. Tkuvho (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tkuvho—Please don't embellish on what sources say. I brought sources (above) and I have provided sources in the article. You are trying to insert material but you have not brought any source to support the material you are trying to insert. No source supports the language that you have added: "as currently practiced". You are going beyond what is supportable by any source that I have seen. You are restricting his opposition to a period in time. No source supports the limiting of the referred-to opposition to any period in time. You can't add assertions if no source makes those assertions. I am asking you to please bring a source to support the notion that Kramer's opposition to federal funding of the arts was limited in the way you wish to assert that it was limited. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read what Grimes actually wrote. I reiterate that he never said Kramer opposed Federal funding. Kramer criticized the way the funds were distributed. He also criticized artists subsidized by such Federal funds. I think you are reading more into Grimes than what Grimes actually wrote. My point is not that Kramer's critique was limited in time, but that it was limited to the way the funds were distributed--at the time Kramer commented on this. Tkuvho (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I would suggest that rather than arguing about this minor point, we try to incorporate more material from Kimball's piece which is likely to be more sympathetic to HK. Tkuvho (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Tkuvho—You are repeatedly attempting to insert unsourced materal. At WP:V we find: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." We also find at WP:V: "No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable." In this edit you assert that Kramer was opposed to "the way federal funding of the arts was disbursed". This is not supported by any source. We know, according to reliable sources, that Kramer opposed "federal funding of the arts". This is sourced by the following: "He opposed federal funding of the arts for contributing to political correctness and the degradation of classic values in art." Bus stop (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it for now, but I would like again to urge you to stop focusing on Woo's piece and consider more reliable sources such as Kimball for the WSJ. After all, journals like the Times and LA were precisely the target of Kramer's criticism. You can't necessarily count on them to provide an objective evaluation of Kramer's work as an art critic. Tkuvho (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To be more specific, Woo's discussion of Christopher Knight's 1991 piece in LA times as a serious critique is revealing of her own standards of writing. Tkuvho (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read Kramer's piece here. Nothing here about opposing Federal funding. Much discussion of the ills of the way the funding is disbursed. Tkuvho (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)