Talk:Visual art of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Categories that are missing

1. What about Colonial painters ?
2. What about American Impressionists ?
3. What about 20th century modern artists of the American West ? Easterners summering or retiring in Sante Fe were not the only modernists making art in the West.

MdArtLover 18:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I am at an Edit-a-thon at Smithsonian American Art on their Civil War exhibit and was thinking about creating a Civil War category, would that be something of worth to do?

RebusDuplex999 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

#What about the 20th Century regionalists ?

In the second half of the 20th century there was a distinct division of imagery between the western and eastern United States, especially between the metropolises of Los Angeles and New York. Just before and during World War II many European artists travelled to New York. But not all. For example the German artists Max Beckmann ended up in St. Louis, and Hans Hoffman in Northern California, while the Armenian artist A. Gorky ended up in New York. The latter, Gorky, was a major influence on the New York Abstract Expressionist School, which included such artists as Pollack, De Kooning, and Rothko. Beckmann is much more appreciated today than ever before. In the west coast we have great, and under appreciated, Bay Area Figurative school, which included David Park, Nathan Olivara, and Elmer Bischoff. Mark Faraday 05:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1. What about portrait painting ?
2. What about watercolor ?
3. What about the great magazine illustrators ?
4. What about the cowboy/western painters ?
5. What about liturgical windows and paintings ?
6. What about illustrated children's books ?
7. what about comic books and cartoons ?

Each of the above should be a section -- written by someone who knows a lot about it.

--Mountshang 00:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Attribution needed

The closing statement, "Perhaps the most influential 20th-century American contribution to world art has been a mocking playfulness, a sense that a central purpose of a new work is to join the ongoing debate over the definition of art itself," is questionable. What American art could be more important or in more profound, mystical earnest than Rothko? Where is the mocking playfulness in Whistler's nocturnes or in his ashy grey portraits? What could be more American or less unserious than Jane Frank's brooding inscapes? MdArtLover 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Western art history article

If European art (very much alive actually) doesn't get its own article, American Art shouldn't either. Merge with Western art history article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.118.137.186 (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense! European art has many articles - see French art, Italian art, Spanish art, Art of the United Kingdom, Irish art, Russian culture, Norwegian art, Swedish art, Danish art, Portuguese art among others...Modernist (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification required

"After World War II, New York replaced Paris as the center of the art world." While formerly true for the avant garde, this has now become debatable in recent years. Berlin is also considered the new centre of the art world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.118.137.186 (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:WhistlersMother.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WhistlersMother.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Categorization problems

Since my attempt to change it was reverted, I open for discussion that the categories for this page are improper. While *related*, "Visual arts in the United States" is NOT an American art museum, a museum in New York, a native american art museum in Washington, D.C., etc, and thus does not belong within those categories, rather within a higher, related category. The tags on this page are categories for this *article*, not links to the subject matter. For those, please see Category:American art and its relevant subcategories. Thanks. Morgan Riley (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree: there is one article listed in Category:Museums in Manhattan that is different from all the others, which usually indicates a problem. For Visual art of the United States to be in that category is counterintuitive, and contrary to the way other such articles (e.g., French art, Australian art) are categorized. Ewulp (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of American art in those categories. If Category:Museums in Manhattan doesn't muster I'll remove it...Modernist (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Modernist, that is why all those categories are categorized within/subcategories of Category:American art. But "Visual art of the United States" is NOT an art museum, ergo, it shouldn't be labeled as one in any of those. See WP:OVERCAT and WP:DEFINING, as well as analogous articles (again, e.g., French art). Morgan Riley (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the remaining five "museum" categories are equally wrong. It's as if Category:Concert halls in the United States included Aaron Copland, Piano Concerto No. 1 (Brahms), List of compositions by Gustav Mahler and the like, on the grounds that they are performed there regularly. Ewulp (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally disagree with both of you; those museums are the holding grounds of the most important American art in the world from Paul Revere to Jackson Pollock. This article is about American art; and while the museums have international holdings; they house in copious depth practically all the American art worth discussing...Modernist (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

While your proposition may or may not be correct, it is logically irrelevant. Let's run through the logic, and forgive me if this sounds terse. Is the article "visual art in the United States" a museum, organization of museums, etc.? No. Then it doesn't belong under any museum heading, let alone a geographically specific one. It has nothing to do with importance (Paris is of critical important to France, but once does not categorize the page France UNDER Paris.) Rather, the articles for the museums you mention, will likely have wikilinks in their respective articles to this one--that is the proper method of relating them in this case. Categorization is not a method of linking things related to the topic but are not defining characteristics of it (again, see WP:DEFINING)(which does not mean something that is *important* to the topic, rather, that the *topic itself is a subset therof*); it is a method using sets to classify an article topic so it can be readily and logically found, while at the same time not inundating the categories more than needed. Does this make any sense? (also a quick essay conveying a similar point: WP:DNWAUC) Morgan Riley (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A reader who browses a category page filled with names of museums is looking for a museum; if they mistake Visual art of the United States for the name of a museum and click it, they'll wonder what it's doing in a list of museums. But there may be a tidier way to make the links Modernist wants to preserve. Visual art of the United States contains several links to important museums in the text and in the image captions—and more such links could be added throughout. This might be more useful than links to categories (decontextualized lists), which nonetheless could still be linked by placing List of museums in the United States and so on in "See also", and is there any reason not to use this markup with preceding colon [[:Category:Modern art museums in the United States]] to create links to appropriate categories there as well? Ewulp (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Give it and other links a try in See also - that can be useful. If I was working on a history of French art - you can be sure I'd link to the Louvre among other places: [1]...Modernist (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(starting a new thread) Actually, it may be a neat idea, if reliable sources can be found, to have a subsection devoted to the very thing you mention, namely the general history of the critical reception, appreciation, and collection of American art.Morgan Riley (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with the concept of a separate collections section - underscoring major museum collections and private holdings of American art. Highlighting many of the most important institutions like the Smithsonian American Art Museum, The National Gallery of Art and many more is important, and might actually be more effective and informative than the categories...Modernist (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleting valid and important images

Your interpretation of NFCC#8, no valid article-specific NFCC rationale - is dead wrong and verges on vandalism. The policy states Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. These paintings precisely need to be seen to increase readers understanding of the topic. Don't do it again. The images are specifically mentioned in the text about the art of the southwest, and the New York School, the images are of important works by important artists, who played an important part in the visual arts of the USA and in case you don't know - this is an article about the visual arts of the USA. Visual art needs to be seen - please read WP:NFCC more carefully...Modernist (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Visual art of the United States. 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/20090512111352/http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/tbio?tperson=1981 to http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/tbio?tperson=1981
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808010902/http://www.thamesandhudsonusa.com/new/fall02/523792.htm to http://www.thamesandhudsonusa.com/new/fall02/523792.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) 01:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleting important valid 19th century images

Before deleting important 19th century images achieve consensus and have a valid reason...Modernist (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

A Ride for Liberty – The Fugitive Slaves

How is A Ride for Liberty – The Fugitive Slaves an important inclusions?

• A Ride for Liberty – The Fugitive Slaves is a painting that is a documentation of an important period of American history. It was a terrible time; it was an unbelievable tragic set of circumstances; witnessed by the artist [2]. The painting is both expressive and important as art history, read this - [3]...Modernist (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the Hudson River School painting by Robert S. Duncanson, Landscape with Rainbow, 1859, it is currently in the news and on view at the Biden Whitehouse; see this artnews review - ArtNews the painting is current and relevant to include in this article...You have no consensus to remove these particular works. Your deletions seem like censorship; having little to do with art or art history...Modernist (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• The painting of A Ride for Liberty – The Fugitive Slaves may be a "documentation" of a period of American history in which the artist may or may have not taken artistic liberties. All periods of American history are important. It was a different time not particular to the United States; unbelievable not given the artist witnessed it. The painting is expressive and so are many many more. If it is so important to art history why do you not move it to that page.

• Regarding the Hudson river school painting no dispute. However FYI there are many more painting at the Biden Whitehouse that are currently in the news and on view. Particularly at the oval office. USA Eagle01 (talk)

• Read: WP:DTS...Modernist (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Your point? Did your read: WP:DTS...Modernist? if so read Wikipedia:How to lose USA Eagle01 (talk)
  • The painting clearly scares the pants off you - you don't seem to be able to even see it...Modernist (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

A Ride for Liberty – The Fugitive Slaves is a notable 19th-century work, representing not just an important period of American history, but an important event in American history. Any further removal of this image, or any other image that has long comprised this consensus article, will be dealt with accordingly. WP:IMPROVEDONTREMOVE Coldcreation (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it is worth including; a nice new article. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The painting is new to me, as is the important artist. The artwork is powerful and historical, and deservedly belongs here. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• The painting dose nothing. Don't event want to know more of after your talk. Will probably not leave the east coast anytime soon. What is scary is the fact you can not make a coherent argument for its adjudication and result to quips. If you had any "pants" you will include a painting of Native American being a fugitive to give more "importance." But given your practice I will address the comment by your superiors.

A Ride for Liberty – The Fugitive Slaves representing not just an important period of American history, but an important event in American history and now seems a way to White shame, hold to the past, and it could be argue continue white flight given the response. Not everything is as back or white. For the record I vote to remove the painting talk about contemporary art. USA Eagle01 (talk)

any further comments address to Johnbod (talk) given his support for criminology activity and a message left on personol talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USA Eagle01 (talk • contribs) USA Eagle01 (talk)

To be honest, I don't understand this comment. I assume it is a continuation of your comment immediately above? I've indented accordingly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Admin note: let's all refocus on the question of inclusion and depersonalize this. At this time, there is a consensus to include the image, so any further removal without a change in consensus will be considered disruptive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

You are correct it is a continuation of my comment immediately above in which I try to and point to, deride and criticize by means of satire "Modernist" points by showing the irony of his argument to others. Trying to make the once who supported his comments to reflect. Not being as clear as to make other think and give their perspective as this is "art," like you did. Modernist seems to give the impression that his morals and intention are clear, pure and mean nothing by it. Will it could be argue he is participating in a manner in the same way as to what he deems were "terrible time; it was an unbelievable tragic set of circumstances" by trying to change the narrative and in a way in slaving the Angles community in much the same way as the slaves fleeing. Given another painting could be place illustrating the black community in more color or others as the Native American people whos history may be more important on the bases given. Instead modernist focuses on highlighting episodes to advance the narrative by the joke he made. Lastly, the comment about contemporary art is to point our that Modernist is not as Modern as he holds to the past and is no Joe Biden that is centres or care for unity. Don much care for this particular pies of art but will not remove given Johnbod threat of "polocy" but call to others or an amendment by being more inclusive. USA Eagle01 (talk)

@USA Eagle01: I'll say it a little more directly; you need to stop personalizing this dispute. That's quite enough; you've been slowly expanding this latest personalization for half an hour, and - to be blunt - it is still nearly incomprehensible. I understand it spiraled out of control with snark from both sides, but this is unproductive and needs to stop now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)