Talk:Kay Sage

? date de son suicide ?

Dans son ouvrage « L'Univers surréaliste », éditions Somogy, Paris 1983, l'auteur José Pierre mentionne « 1961 »
Au début de l'article, il est indiqué « 26 JUIN 1963 »
et au 7e paragraphe « 8 JANVIER 1963 ».
Quelle date est conforme ?
Je vous prie d'excuser ma discussion en français, mais mon anglais est trop alléatoire.
Arcane17

In Double Solitaire: The Surreal Worlds of Kay Sage and Yves Tanguy, Stephen Robeson Miller gives the date as January 8, 1963. Pernoctus (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Self-contradictory?

In the current state of the article, it appears to argue with itself... AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Multiplication of the Arcs.jpg

The image Image:Multiplication of the Arcs.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Relationship With Surrealists Is Not Accurately Described

The purely negative relationship between Sage and the Surrealists posited here is inaccurate. I have edited the article to reflect more accurately Sage's relationship with Andre' Breton and the Surrealists, which, while tense at times, was not uniformly hostile, nor did it involve "rejection", as the person who first wrote or edited this section erroneously states. See, for example, "It is this conception of painting [derived from Baudelaire's Modernist conceptions] which, in the latest period, renders more and more necessary, and dazzling with truth and life, the productions of [...] Kay Sage [...]" (Andre Breton, Interview with Charles Henri Ford in View magazine, (no. 7-8, October-November 1941); reprinted in Franklin Rosemont, ed., What Is Surrealism? Selected Writings of Andre Breton (NY: Monad, 1978, p. 204). See also, "Automatism has likewise prevailed over the unveiled and tender vision of Kay Sage [...]", (Andre Breton, "Genesis and Perspective of Surrealism in the Plastic Arts", reprinted in Rosemont, op. cit., p. 229). Sage also participated in the Surrealist exhibition at the Galerie Maeght, Paris, Le Surrealisme en 1947, July 7–August 30, 1947, organized by Andre Breton and Marcel Duchamp. Pernoctus (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Images

These images are needed and are both educational and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

NFCC failure is obvious. Plainly inadequate NFCC rationales, no effort to meet NFCC#8's terms, little more than vertical galleries. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect they all pass NFCC8; and have rationales. Gain consensus before deleting encyclopedic material...Modernist (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That's preposterous and dishonest. Saying that the images "have rationales" in no way indicates they have rationales satisfying policy requirements, especially when the key assertion in the boilerplate rationales is nothing more than "to illustrate the article." NFC policy requirements must be met before nonfree images may be added to articles. Nattering on that consensus must be gained before established policy may be enforced is just deliberate disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again you are incorrect. The rationales are there - apparently you don't like them. Consequently you deleted the imagery without any further word based on your 'opinion which is questionable...Modernist (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

A rationale that is inadequate on its face and does not address NFCC requirements in no way justifies use of nonfree content. Just saying the nonfree image "illustrates" the article is undeniably insufficient, but it would support the use of any relevant image and render NFC policy a dead letter. The WMF has decided that the free content policy is more important than any benefits from untrammeled illustration, and you are not allowed to defy that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Show me where the WMF said anything like what you have just stated...Modernist (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

[T]he mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license" . [1]

Absolutely nothing said regarding images of visual art - here is what the say about paintings [2] - 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 no 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....Modernist (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

... but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Except, of course, there's no discussion of the media in the article at all -- other than a brief mention that a particular painting is, in facr, atypical -- so that quotation is irrelevant here. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the provided rationales for the images currently in use, the rationales are inadequate particularly with respect to criterion 8 of the non-free content policy. I am sympathetic to the desire to provide multiple examples of an artist's work, especially where this illustrates a changing approach over the course of a career. However, absent clear explanatory text in either the body of the article or the image captions, the use of bare images is of dubious usefulness and certainly falls foul of the restrictions of the use of non-free content and is functionally equivalent to an image gallery. From the perspective of many non-expert content re-users (of which I have been one), use of too many non-free images without adequate rationales renders an article essentially unusable. If all the images are to be retained in the article, the image rationales need significant attention from a subject expert. Further, the article itself would ideally be improved with a mind to the fact that many content re-users would have to strip out the images prior to re-use. CIreland (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree - the fair use rationales need correction and the article text needs to both discuss and explain the imagery. I objected to the wholesale removal of all of those images. I do not object to the criticism of the text; and to the rationales - that need fixing...Modernist (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Good. And when you're ready to ACTUALLY discuss the images themselves in the text, then you'd have some actual rationale for their inclusion. I checked, and the only image which even gets a brief mention is the one in the infobox -- and it explicitly says that that image is NOT typical.

As far as the article content goes, analysis/discussion of images first, addition of specified images second. So, out they go until you put up. Otherwise, they're really only functioning as decorations. If readers want content- and analysis-free looks at her paintings, there's always Google Images. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough Calton, when I have the time I'll work on it...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

image caption

wow. i'm not going into the other discussions about images in this article. this is a quibble--for the image "Margin of Silence," the caption uses the word "illudes." i really question whether this is the appropriate, or best, word choice? perhaps "alludes" is a better fit? but i don't want to just change it since there has been previous discussions here about the use of images and accompanying text.Colbey84 (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)