Talk:List of Hudson River School artists

Women artists

Is there a reason that women artists of the Hudson River School are treated of in a separate paragraph rather than being integrated with the rest of the list? It seems it would be enough to acknowledge in a paragraph the reality that their careers in general developed differently because they did not have the same access to training or exhibitions, but otherwise include them in the list by generation in parallel with their male counterparts. Alafarge (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph doesn't make sense to me, now that everyone mentioned has an article. I would delete it, and include all of those artists in the list, if they aren't already. There may be information in that para that could be included under "Description" in the list. I see you have been doing work in this area. Outriggr (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Outriggr I agree, but didn't want to plunge in straightaway in case I was missing something. Alafarge (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Generations

The main Hudson River School only mentions the founder (and his friend), and a second generation. This list, however, breaks them up into first, second, and third generations. What is the basis for that? I've never seen any reliable articles or books on the topic that do this splitting by "generation" (not saying they don't exist, just that I've never seen any that do it). The diff when this split occurred referenced this book on the Civil War period that lists a handful (13) of the artists on this page and splits them into a second and third generation of the school. However, that's the only place I've found this splitting into generations. Unless we can support (via reliable sources about this topic) this division of the artists into generations in the main article, I think this list needs to be merged back into a single list. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Two generations are always supported by relevant sources. Three in some—[1], a table even! but not a specialist book on art!—but it's kind of inside baseball to assign them this way, as sources may not agree (one source said that Bierstadt "led" in the third generation, but he can't be assigned there; he was well-known in, and born with, the second generation... for example)—and finding a source for every artist is not feasible or perhaps possible. And the classification is not as simple as birth era, apparently. It's quite subjective and not that important, for the purposes of a list.

I would support a sortable single list, with Thomas Cole at the top and otherwise sorted by birth. Outriggr (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Outriggr: Yeah, I included a link to the Civil War book in my first comment. I don't really consider it authoritative on the topic of the Hudson River. I think a single sortable list would be the best, especially since any sources I've seen now (I've looked a bit) only list a handful of the artists, and (as you pointed out) often disagree on which artists are in each generation. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Well that's embarrassing! After "diff" I must have skipped the detail of that sentence, thinking it was all diffs!

OK, so two of us probably agree that, even if there is general scholarly support for three generations of HRS painters,

• there is no realistic way for us to place any given artist (and there are a lot of them) in 1, 2, or 3; sourcing for the lesser known artists may not exist, or may be contradictory.
• without explaining this split to the reader, it's confusing rather than informative, and reduces the functionality of the table somewhat. It may be somewhat original research as it stands now. Outriggr (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've combined them all into one list. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Verifying entries and adding refs

Some recent edits have expressed concern that not everyone on the list is actually considered part of the Hudson River School. I think it would be good to add at least one reference for every entry that supports the artist being on this page. As most of them have articles, it should be as easy as copying over a reference from the article. For others, it might take some work. In the end, though, having the references here will only strengthen the list. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is regrettable and damaging to countless interested newbies that eager enthusiasts on the sidelines cling to this long debunked and apocryphal notion of a School with such a tenacious grasp and spread misinformation about minor artists drawing from minor writers. Not since at least 1993 has it been possible to speak without caveat about "members" of "generations" of a "school". Facts matter, and conflating countless topographers, history painters, genre painters, and even pre-Raphaelites who plainly loathed Cole with a monolithic and ahistorical movement is dead wrong and alarmingly old fashioned. (See upcoming exhibition at the National Gallery DC on this very subject, promoted by a talk by Linda Ferber titled "Public Enemy No. 1" in reference to Cole- just one example of the way this page plays fast and loose with facts that matter and was severely in need of the tough love it received.) Rigorous sourcing not from fellow amateurs to the field but from the reliable sources now decades past controversy by Angela Miller and Alan Wallach will set y'all straight. Look within, think on the damage your commendable but ultimately wrongheaded emphasis on completism over precision does, and go beyond the headlines to learn more about the loose landscape boom you you seem to love. I prescribe 'Empire of the Eye' to start. I don't have time to fix all the errors myself but will check in as needed to ensure the enthusiasts are keeping to the straight and narrow. Uvedale (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Uvedale: Contrary to your apparent belief, most of us editing this article are not just "interested newbies". In order to work more smoothly on Wikipedia, I recommend you drop the "I'm so much smarter than all you plebes" attitude. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. We care about verifiable content, which is why I suggested that it would be good to include references for every entry in this list. No one is asking you to "fix all the errors" yourself, and we don't need you to "check in as needed to ensure the enthusiasts are keeping to the straight and narrow." You're welcome to help with the article, but not if you're going to act as if you know more than anyone else when it comes to the Hudson River School. Subject matter experts are welcome here, but only if you're willing to work with others and check your attitude at the door. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)