Talk:Model (art)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hazards

The "Hazards" section was unsourced and preposterous, so I blipped it: 1. I know of no scientific study that specifically connects Art modeling with varicose veins, nerve and muscle damage, skin discoloration, and temporary paralysis. To make the leap of assumption that all Art modeling includes "prolonged circulation cut-offs" is WP:OR. 2. The "model becoming chilled" hardly constitutes a hazard. 3. Stepping on tacks from platforms in disrepair is possible, I suppose, but so is stepping on a broken Yoo-Hoo bottle from studios in disarray. wikipediatrix 00:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

History

I cannot be the only one curious about "the unfortunate contadino" and Sansovino. What exactly happened to make his remuneration unfortunate? CKozeluh 23:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I added that verbatim from the 1911 Britannica, in which the articles are densely written and don't always explain themselves. The section should probably be rewritten. Anyway I found this on Google which I assume is what they're talking about: "A story of a somewhat later date still further illustrates the dependence of the work of art upon the model in Renaissance Florence. Jacopo Sansovino made the statue of a youthful "Bacchus" in close imitation of a lad called Pippo Fabro. Posing for hours together naked in a cold studio, Pippo fell into ill health, and finally went mad. In his madness he frequently assumed the attitude of the "Bacchus" to which his life had been sacrificed, and which is now his portrait."[1] --Chroniclev 01:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

"In the art school classroom setting, the purpose is to learn how to draw humans of all different shapes, ages, and ethnicities, so there are no real limitations on who the model can be. Children are excluded from modeling for these purposes as they are considered too young to pose."

If children aren't allowed to model, then how can the purpose of learning to draw humans of all ages be fulfilled? And what does "too young to pose" mean anyway? -- Smjg 13:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Children in an art classroom generally follows the same guildlines whether they are artists or models. Most schools do not allow anyone under 18, but others require parental permission. FigureArtist 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging 'Nude modeling' article

• Merge and redirect Nude Modeling here. There is an argument that "nude modeling" includes modeling for voyeuristic purposes and that such modeling does not constitute "Model (art)". However, clearly, no one is going to greatly expand that portion of the Nude Modeling article and considering that substantial overlap between the NM article and the NM section is possible, that alone isn't enough to keep them as separate articles. RickReinckens 05:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - it's quite stubbish and overlapping. Fastifex 11:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - There is plenty of art modeling that is nude. Voyeurism should not be called modeling at all. A stripper at a "gentleman's" club is not modeling, nor is anything similar. If we are going to explain modeling, the distinction should not be blurred. Nude modeling should be a subsection of art modeling. Voyeurism and similar topics should not be part of either.Aknicholas (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Don't merge. Art Modeling and Nude Modeling are two vastly different worlds and must eventually be covered separately, despite the current stub status. I for one do not wish to see porno nude modeling and art nude modeling forced to share the same article. In my experience most models see the two as vastly different. wikipediatrix 22:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the point of this new article at all. The article includes art modeling in its scope, and note the creator's comments on its talk page. --Chroniclev 02:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Merge. I agree that posing nude for the fine arts is essentially different than other nude modeling, particularly for non-photographic media. Holding still, breaking and resuming a pose, and working in classrooms is unique to the art school environment.FigureArtist 19:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging Time for print article

Before suggesting, the article was marked with the {{unencyclopediac}} tag because it is a new term for pro-bono based modeling. I think it should be merged here instead, due to its rising use throughout the modeling community. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

TFP/TFCD is part of the commecial photography world, and has little to do with modeling for the fine arts.FigureArtist 02:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• OPPOSE: Not specific to ART-modelling (often amateurs!), but al profesoional Arcarius 08:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• OPPOSE: Actually, if anything, "TFP/CD" is part of the amateur modeling world. Professional photographers rarely shoot trade for anything. They may shoot "test," but despite often being used interchangeably by those who don't know better, the two things are not the same. "Land-based" agencies, models and photographers, who still form the vast majority of the "real" modeling world, do not use the term. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with "pro-bono" anything. TFP is barter, not gift. However, even though the term is more commonly used in amateur/art modeling than in professional/commercial modeling, it's still important enough that it deserves its own article. People who are looking for the definition and description of TF* should not have to wade through a general article on modeling. 71.194.183.199 01:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• oppose per those above. Johnbod 01:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• oppose: TFP/CD is for photographic models just starting out who want to build a commercial portfolio, and has little relationship to fine arts modeling.FigureArtist 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: Forms of payment, barter, and other tangential practices are not part of the modeling process itself.Aknicholas (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Art Models

Examples of Art Modeling in film: Titanic is the worst possible example, since the drawing session is essentially foreplay, soon followed in the story by sex. This nudity=sex bias runs through most of popular media. The impromptu drawing session in "As Good as It Gets" is better, but for a more accurate portrayal of a professional artist/model relationship, see the film "Maze"(2000) with Rob Morrow and Laura Linney.FigureArtist 19:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lede image

The image of artists in an art school working from life with a live model is appropriate as the lede in this article...Modernist (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Films

I don't think the passage about private modeling, as shown in fictional films, belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aknicholas (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Beginning Section

Needed clarifying and simplification There seemed no point in listing all the forms of art here when they are also mentioned further down, and the Muybridge reference was repeated entirely under Nude Modeling.

I removed "professional" which has a specific set of criteria that art modeling almost never fulfills: training requirements, employment that provides a substantial portion of total income, and an organization that sets standards of performance. The San Francisco, DC, and UK groups may offer training and attempt to control entry into the job market, but this is a rarity and no impediment to anyone who wants to become a model without membership even in those cities. FigureArtist (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Clothed Models

The section originally contained unsupported assertions regarding costumed models for commercial art and design schools, so I replaced them with a description from my own experience in the Fine Arts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FigureArtist (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's merely replacing one set of unsourced original research with another. JNW (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Added one reference, looking for others.FigureArtist (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Plans for Continued Editing

The subject of this article are important to me, so I plan to make substantial edits in addition to those that I have already made. Since I am used to academic writing rather than wikimedia editing, perhaps I have already made some significant changes without consideration of anyone else who may be editing also. However, it seems to me that there has been little recent activity, so I feel justified in just jumping in, but would not mind some feedback.FigureArtist (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The most important advice I can give is to remember that personal experience, no matter how valuable, is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia articles. WP:RELIABLE is a necessity. Good luck, JNW (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

---

I have just committed to my best effort with as many references and sources as I could find:

Modeling Life by Sarah Phillips Phd, which is likely the only solid sociological work on the topic based upon an extensive literature survey and interviews with 60 models in Portland, OR. It did not always explain all of the academic concepts used, but I have an MA in the Social Sciences myself, so reading it was very familiar territory.

The Undressed Art is by Peter Steinhart, a naturalist and amateur artist who interviewed many other artist and some models.

Live Nude Girl is a memoir regarding her own career as a model by a women now an English professor and poet (and therefore a very good read but perhaps lacking in objectivity) . It was previously mentioned but not used as a reference.

The Artist's Model from Etty to Spencer was a catalog for an exhibit at the British Museum regarding a very specific time and place, England from the beginning of the Victorian Era (1830's) to the beginning of the 20th Century.

I have located some other books that are hard to find but I can get to the Library of Congress so this is not the end of my work. FigureArtist (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Excellent. Cheers, JNW (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

---

More references added, reaching the point were I thought it needed to go to a separate Notes and References sections. Going over things to do this, I began with tweaks but ended up doing some significant reorganizing to place topics together, particularly the opening; which now has the basic outline:

1. What a model does (posing) and Why
   1. the education of artists: posing in art school
   2. for the creation of art: posing for Professional Artist
2. Why pose nude?
3. The Social consequences of Nude Modeling

FigureArtist (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Discovered the Gallery template, replaced lists of links with images. Changed single image of modern pose with gallery of poses from the same source. FigureArtist (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

Two additions to the Nude Modeling section were removed. One was an unnecessarily detailed description of what a "suggestive" pose would be. The other was an addition to the line regarding erections, which already had a cited reference to the issue that does not mention it being more of a problem for new models. It is not, and it not really that much of a problem at all.FigureArtist (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Photo, Anonymous Edits

Given the subject, which has previously attracted vandals who added sexually explicit material, anonymous edits are a problem. I also want to maintain the "decorum" that actually is maintained in art classes. The posing photos I have already added are discrete, but illustrate the topic. Yes, there are penises, but no close up photos, please. (And no, I am not homophobic. I was a male model myself in my college days.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterArtistDC (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Same photo added again, removed again.FigureArtist (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Same photo, plus another, both unnecessary, added then reverted by contributer?! FigureArtist (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverted unreferenced addition

Having never heard of a model being called a sitter anywhere, this addition would need a source. The person who sits for a portrait is usually paying, and is the client not the model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FigureArtist (talk • contribs) 14:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Added meaning of sitter as one who poses but not a model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FigureArtist (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Norman Rockwell

Reverted change to line regarding Norman Rockwell, who I use as an example of an illustrator. Changing it to a example of someone using unpaid models is unwarranted without a reference, and likely untrue. He was wealthy compared to his neighbors, so he likely paid them, although it is not made explicit. See: [2] FigureArtist (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Photo Addition

The vintage photo of a model adds nothing to the article, given that there is already one at the top. FigureArtist (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

American vs British spelling?

I suppose this is an issue all over, but I see no reason to "correct" American spelling as was recently done here. Words are pointers to meaning, so changes need be made only to improve understanding. FigureArtist (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup

This was the first article I edited years ago, and I have learned much about WP style and formatting, so I am moving book refs from the end to inline citations, rewording, and removing my own opinions until I find sources.WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC) (formerly "FigureArtist")

Children as models

A change by an anonymous editor prompted me to expand and clarify the content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Model (art). 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/20120301054945/http://www.lifemodelssociety.org.au/ to http://www.lifemodelssociety.org.au/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603194343/http://www.bayareamodelsguild.org/ to https://www.bayareamodelsguild.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160523061623/http://www.artmodelbook.com/ to https://www.artmodelbook.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160620091813/http://www.kyo.se/e107_v0/page.php?9 to https://www.kyo.se/e107_v0/page.php?9

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) 07:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead images, POV

@Johnbod: - It is difficult to comprehend the intentions behind your recent edits.

First there an awkwardly worded distinction between "sitter" and "model" added to the first paragraph without a citation, duplicating the same distinction, with citations, that ends the second paragraph.

With regard to images, the pre-existing ones illustrated the text, and needed no additions. I do not see where the Russian illustration is better than the French academy photo in illustrating male models in the 1800s. The Ringling Museum image might be used somewhere in the article, but is not needed in the lead given the 20th century image gallery under the Posing section.

After reverting my changes, you went on to add opinions without citing sources, sometimes replacing cited content. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the sitter duplication, moved some images, and placed some citation needed tags.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: - You suggested talking, but are continuing to hack away.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I am almost entirely adding, apart from removing some more old nonsense, whther referenced to 100yo sources or not. You have clearly had this fairly popular article all to yourself for too long, and have developed WP:OWN attidudes. That no more images were needed is a pretty bizarre contention. Long stretches of the article were entirely unillustrated, but there were fairly large galleries. Galleries have no more staunch defenders than myself, but you do usually need to more or less fill all available slots beside the text first, on most readings of WP:GALLERY. The distinction between models and sitters still needs to be made more strongly and earlier. It was a comment by a non-native speaker of English unaware of the point in an FAC that led me to the article in the first place. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

By hacking I don't mean removing, but indiscriminate edits, such as the duplication of content which cannot be justified by reference to a single reader. Now an image (Ringling museum) has been move from a section were it illustrated the text, to another section were it does not. Its premature (WP:AGF) to call ownership for one revert. All the images are now on the right, which is not justified by the MOS guideline on "facing the text" which is not applied consistently to other images. I was a web page designer, so am used to thinking about the readability of an article in terms of placement of images, and only when needed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The left-right alternation has been largely abandoned for some years, as it couldn't cope with the vast variety of screen sizes and types we now have. You realize over 50% of readers are using mobiles, god help them? Since part of your revert was to position an image (the Raphael ladies) to face off the page - a part of the MOS which is still relevant, excuse me if I take your views on placement with a pinch of salt. Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I said nothing about left-right, so that is a straw man argument. I just think its boring to have every image on one side, fighting for attention. I also think that at some point even an art topic has too many images. For example I intended the gallery of artist's family to illustrate a point, not be an exhaustive list, and now it has 12 images. Certainly most figurative artists painted their family, but only some are iconic, such as Whistler's Mother.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As indicative of the level of collaboration here; no response to the above, but the gallery is now 16 images.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Were since you were saying something about left-right, which I'd already answered above, I wasn't clear what response was needed. I've only add ?2 images to the gallery, but there are still bits of text they could be spread to. Anyway, the article is now better than 10 days ago, imo anyway. Are you going to fix the Campbell ref? This is third time of asking. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Unclear reference

There remains one unformatted reference "Campbell, 3–4" in the History section. If it refers to pages in the book by Campbell under "References", it can be converted to an in-line reference.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course it does! I hope you haven't removed the other Campbell refs. I deplore the antiquated style you have converted the Bernstein refs to, but won't oppose. As far as I can see this style had never been used in the article before, and per WP:CITEVAR you should have obtained consensus here first, especially as you were changing edits barely an hour old! You seem unclear what "in-line" means (not to mention "unformatted") - all those were already that. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

There is only one Campbell ref. What is antiquated? Perhaps you mean the rp tags, which are the only way to add page numbers to named refs, although a fix is in the works. Unformatted means plain text between ref tags with no cite templates.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There is now as you indeed removed the other, presumably just through carelessness! Please put it back. That is now a very unusual way to have page numbers. Templateless refs are perfectly formatted, & indeed a far better method. Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

So there was a reference to both Campbell and the Metropolitan Museum website within one pair of ref tags? What could be more confusing? By contrast, I see CS1 templates used everywhere, so it never occurred to me that they needed justification.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"Bundled references" as they are called, are perfectly normal in high quality articles, indeed essential if ugly "taxi ranks" of multiple references are to be avoided. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The guideline is to separate each cite in the bundle so they each have their own line in the Reference section, which was not done. I avoid "taxi ranks" by not having more than two refs for a line of text.

Moving the image did not solve the "sandwiching" problem, if there is one; but now the one modern image of a life session is once again in the section where it is not relevant. A solution would be to place all four the 19th century modeling images in a gallery and use Ringling Museum as the opening image for the article.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not a guideline at all. Surely images of life classes are "relevant" to most of the article. I don't understand your position. Ref 61 is still screwed up - please fix properly. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Advice given in a Help page is also "guidance" unless one wants to WikiLawyer.
• When an article has many images, if one does not illustrate the nearby text "every section needs an image" may not apply. As I suggested above, the image could go at the beginning of the article.
• Ref 61 works as intended. (Comments regarding issues should be made on this talk page, not in the edit summaries of unrelated reverts.)

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• • NO it doesn't - why is p. 151 included? You've tripped yourself up with your own template. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Its not my error, its whoever originated the citation, who included p.151. I just applied the template. If the problem had been stated clearly originally, it could have been fixed, which I have now. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"The Painter and his Model"

An original and very topical double self-portrait by Jean-Alphonse Roehn (fr:Jean-Alphonse Roehn). But where could we add it? --Edelseider (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Depends whether the topic of the article is strictly interpreted as being about modeling as a job or more broadly as "the model" in Art. Given the idealization, and being not of a model but a self-portrait, this painting is in the latter category and I would not add it anywhere.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: I am not sure if what you call "idealization" is not, in fact, humour or irony. The pathetic pose of the "model" is clearly exaggerated for jocular purposes, in my opinion, as a contrast to the mundane and, in fact, downright miserable setting. --Edelseider (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot going on here, but nothing about art models. Idealization for me is showing something "better than reality" to play on emotions. Here he has shown himself both as a poor artist in his garret, but doing a painting casting himself in the role of Christian martyr.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Subtopic relevant to two sections

@Nazock: I reverted your edit because it does not address the issue. Some content on art school policies is relevant in two subsections. Entirely voiding duplication may not be possible, although perhaps an internal section link could be used.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I am thinking of a general reorganization following the intro section:

• Posing
  • Appearance/age/gender
• Types of modeling
  • Art classes/groups
    • Training and selection
    • School policies and job descriptions
  • Private
  • Clothed modeling
  • Photography
• History
  • Ancient
  • Post-classical and Renaissance
  • Modern and contemporary
• In popular culture

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Reorganization of content generally complete, not exactly as outlined above.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

With my last edit consolidating Academic model content, I think the "duplication" issue that prompted my reviewing the article has been resolved.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Globalization tag

Removed because art modeling is a tradition within Western art, and exists elsewhere only to the extent that this tradition has been adopted. In almost ten years, I have never seen any sources for "worldwide" practices. There are depictions of humans, but not from live models.

In addition, the tag was misplaced within one section while referring to the entire article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Because Wired is being hyperbolic, should WP be also?

I am aware of online modeling, so the new section makes sense, but the author of this Wired article is using wording that is not likely to be supported by more reliable sources than a popular magazine that is about technology, not art.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Citing a dissertation

I plan to site this source, which appears to pass the WP:RS criteria being a doctoral thesis from a reputable institution which is available online. Although it includes primary research, there is extensive background on the history of modeling and sociological theories that apply to the analysis of that research.

• Bharali, Kannaki (2019). Nude in a Classroom: The Contemporary World of Life Modelling (PhD). CUNY Academic Works. Retrieved September 28, 2021.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have begun adding content supported by this source. Note: the author has become a professor of sociology.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there is anything specific in wp:RS but to my mind if a thesis is good enough for an award of PhD by a reputable university, it is good enough for us and far better than the most sources we use.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

1. Content regarding an artist was restored, having been removed because the article is about people who pose, not the artists. In the same edit, a paragraph about Lucien Freud, a late 2oth/early 21st century artist was combined with a paragraph about three late 19th/early 20th century artists. Edit summary "Too many short paragraphs" only applies to the second part of the edit. The paragraph break was appropriate.
2. Image of one of the artist's wives moved from gallery to lead section, no edit summary.
3. In the intro, three types or work that define the modeling occupation were cited per the reference, and italicized to show their connection. Two were changed to normal text, leaving one. Edit summary only "MOS". The Manual of Style states italics may be used for empasis, which is applicable here.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

3. Use of emphasis (italics or bold) should be very exceptional and only used where the emphasis is essential for clarity or distinction. In the cases where Johnbod removed the italic markup, I concur per that 'rule'. Where the issue is the use-mention distinction, single quotes achieve the desired effect. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I missed one, but have now done that. On the first point, I don't see how "Among his finest works are two versions of the Banquet of Cleopatra, using his own family, including himself, as models (Royal Collection, 1652, and Currier Museum of Art, New Hampshire, 1669). The second version has great pathos, as most of those depicted had died in the plague of 1663–64." is about the artist rather than people who pose. I'd add that this also relates to one of the gallery images. The moved image was simply to balance the gallery/text images better - more could be done on this. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The image of Olga illustrated the text were it was, so I added a reference to friends and family in the lead.

If it is to stay, the praise of Jan de Bray needed attribution. I am assuming the language is supported by the citation, but I cannot find the source to verify.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The importance of defining the topic

An article needs a definition of the topic in order to make decisions regarding content that is central, what is related, and what is entirely off-topic. This article is about art models, which are referred to by the majority of the reliable sources cited as casual employees, mostly at teaching institutions, a smaller number by professional artists. Artists that do not employ models, but substitute family and friends to occupy that role, are worth mentioning but are peripheral to this topic. Content not about models at all, but artists who employ "substitute models", and the paintings that depict them, are not merely peripheral but off-topic, warranting the removal.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Found that the cited painting has its own article, so per WP:Summary style there is no need to repeat peripheral content here, a wikilink will do.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not a correct reading! Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of summary style is to keep articles within readable length. How is using links to other articles (both existing and splits) not the essence of accomplishing this? Many works of art are included here to illustrate the topic of models, should there be additional content for each regarding other aspects of the work and the artist, particularly when there are dedicated articles for these?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

From the above, you seem to want to write Art models in contemporary North America. Why not propose a move? Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Who is misreading? There is as much historical and global content on the topic as I can find in reliable sources. Globalization is difficult, given that art models exist in Western culture, and worldwide only to the degree that arts education has become westernized.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)