Talk:Women artists/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

2005 edits

I am still in the process of cutting and pasting in all my text, but i wanted to start putting elements of it up for everyone to edit. It would also be great if someone could fill in the Ancient and Byzantine parts of these entry as those are well beyond my area of expertise. Also, what about non-western art? I know that in parts of Africa women are responsible for creating textiles and in other parts of Africa women are responsible for painting the exteriors of buildings.--209.130.203.234 20:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This page is becoming quite long, does someone have a good method of separating it while retaining the goal of creating a comprehensive look at women artists.--209.130.203.234 20:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to proof this, but i am not a good proofer. Maybe someone else can try? --964267sr 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, i don't think this article is too long yet, but lets keep an eye on it. I could see it linking to a dedicated page about 20th century and 21st century Women Artists, as there are many more artists from this time period, and there is more known about those women.--964267sr 02:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Women in Art

Currently "Women in Art" redirects here, so this page should definitely have information about the 20th/21st century as well. I added an expansion tag. - AKeen 18:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You also mentioned that the 19th century could use some expansion. There were no Pre-Raphaelite women artists mentioned (that I recognised) apart from photographer Julia Margaret Cameron, so I've added a list of the better-known ones, and some relevant book references. Charivari 08:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Stunning special on women's art in Latest Art a new British magazine edited naturally by women. Wimmin 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please somebody else profile the artists featured in the magazine above which Wikipedia has not got articles for. Wikipedia has one of the best files on women artists now. Wimmin 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is more - the magazine gives out a link to this page! Does this mean we need to tell 'upstairs' that this page is the subject of 'live' media coverage? Link to Latest Art link to here Wimmin 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please watch Ruth Rix. Anon editor has removed her from category 'British artist' and replaced with 'Jewish artist'. Looks awfully like an attempt to downgrade Wimmin 15:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

When I typed 'Women in art' into the search box I expected an article discussing women as featured in art - in other words an article discussing phenomena such as bad girl art, good girl art, and others. I cannot also find any useful category for that, and it appears that the main category for the 'women artists' article is Category:Women in art. This is confusing: perhaps some renaming and disambig is needed?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, why is there no category at bottom of article linking to women's issues and politics? Wimmin 11:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There was no category 'women's issues and politics', but I added categories 'Feminism' and 'Gender studies', which I think pretty well covers it.MdArtLover 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit leery

about leaping in here, but, i discovered this sentence,

"In Art Deco Hildreth Meiere produced relational mosaics."

and am wondering about the use of the word "relational?" Any ideas? I am quite familiar with HM's work and . . . . . . . . ........ ? Carptrash 04:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a possible mistype of "repertory," which she is described as in her own article. I don't think "relational" really adds anything. - AKeen 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many images?

This article is getting a little image heavy. All these images running down each side of the screen are starting to look pretty cluttered and somewhat repetitive (3 by Artemisia Gentileschi). Maybe there could be a small thumbnail gallery at the bottom of each section and one main picture in each section - though I have a feeling that galleries would soon expand out of hand, as well. - AKeen 15:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhh...

"Women were often sexually harassed in artistic expressions that were not typically signed. This includes many forms of textile production, including weaving, embroidery, and lace-making"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.140.154 (talk • contribs)

Yeah that part didn't make sense at all, and I guess it just previously slipped by. I think it was meant that women were typically sequestered into these fields. I've updated the text - AKeen 21:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Malvina Hoffman

should either be removed from the introduction to the 20th Century section, or the word "painters" should be changed to "artist," or "sculptors" should be added - something. I favor removing "Painters" and doing something else because there is a bias/misunderstanding among some folks that the words "artist" and "painter" are synonymous, and, as Sportin' Life says in Porgy and Bess, It Ain't Necessarily So. Carptrash 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Women's literature" as an area of study

(I am posting this message on the discussion pages of several likely articles and lists; sorry for the cross-posting):

I'd like to invite anyone interested in women's cultural production to read and comment on a draft article, " Women's literature in English." It began in response to the recent removal of " Woman Writers" as a category. It's close to being finished, but a few more eyes would be really helpful. Thanks! scribblingwoman 16:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: Yesterday I submitted the category for review for reinstatement. The discussion is getting quite frothy. Okay, that's an understatement. (I cited this article, BTW, as a good example of work on women's cultural production). scribblingwoman 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction, suggestions

• As it is, the introduction reads like an intro to an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Leading off with the Nochlin quote really isn't appropriate imo, as it is an intentionally provocative and skewed question that doesn't really introduce the subject properly. Perhaps this quote could be moved to the 20th century art section or something. Typically, the lead should summarize the article instead of introduce a question which is never mentioned again in the text. Also, this is a fairly large article to be without any inline cites. Perhaps the primary author(s) of the article could remedy this? Just a couple suggestions which would greatly improve this article imo. Wickethewok 19:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole article was likely someone's school essay. The intro as it stands is not very appropriate for an encyclopedia. I think we should remove it (except for the last paragraph, maybe) and just start out with the second section, "issues", which gives a better overview. - AKeen 14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with this line of thought. The intro makes the whole article seem a bit POV. Paul Haymon 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The article - the beginning at least - is not working on my monitor. Some wierd overlapping of elements. However I am reluctant to start moving stuff around. Meanwhile, what is happening here? Is it, as John and Yoko said, Just like starting all over? Carptrash 14:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the intro notice. I think the intro needs to be rewritten from scratch, as previously it was just a provocative quote. As for the rest of the article, a lot of it is still written in "report" still and needs a trim. Much of the content was pasted in, completely finished, a long time ago (see any edit in Nov of 2005). This article may indeed need a lot of rewriting. - AKeen 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Twenty-First Century

Twenty-First Century section started by being filled with publicity of artists of no particular notability. I believe that this is undesired and not respectful. 89.159.156.52 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The 21st century is only eight years old. In order to distinguish it from the 20th century, one must highlight emerging artists. Mid-career artists cross over into the last century. The artists selected for this article have all won major awards and are recognized publicly for the caliber and ingenuity of their art. Please provide better examples of uniquely 21st century artists before deleting these. Campcloudrimwaldo (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All your edits [1] consist of inserting Becca Bernstein‎ in articles, so you do not seem a disinterested party in this discussion. Tyrenius (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Subsequently the section was reinstated. I reverted two artists who do not have bios on Wikipedia, but there are questions remaining regarding the 'selection' process. For instance, 3 of the 4 now mentioned hail from Portland, Oregon, which suggests an agenda. If several 21st century artists are to be mentioned, then the above point has merit: choose a handful who have unquestionable and international notability. That being said, I am not certain it is within the encyclopedia's purview to posit which hot things will stay hot, i.e., is the section even encyclopedic, or is it just an invitation for promotion? JNW (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a bad approach generally, imho, leaving Emin, Whiteread etc as C20th artists. Better to have a section "contemporary artists" with an arbitary self-declared start point of artists who became notable from - say - 1980, or some such date. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a go at it, Johnbod. Cheers, JNW (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've done a simple split & added a couple of lines. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There are serious omissions here, Jenny Saville and Sarah Lucas for a start. Tomma Abts (Turner Prize winner 2006)... Tyrenius (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Stick 'em in then Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Contemporary art section is a good addition to the article but is dominated by British artists (there is much more to contemporary art than the Turner prize) and artists who began working or gained prominence decades ago. This leaves the 21st century almost completely out. So why replace it with this section? Just add the new section to the 20th century or leave it and bring back a section on 21st century. The list of greatest women artists ever doesn't belong in the Contemporary art section at all (unless you find a list of greatest contemporary artists). I'll wait to hear your thoughts before making changes. Campcloudrimwaldo (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I just used the names already there; certainly others need adding, although it does seem to me women artists are especially prominent in England in recent years. Following from the discussion above, I just don't think that a 7 year (one month) period should be treated the same as a 100 year period. Somewhere around 1980 I think there is a useful break. What do others think? Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem imperative to adhere to a 'century' format, esp. considering, as has been stated, the relative newness of the 21st. A 'contemporary' or 'current' heading works. But as I offered earlier, the inclusion of contemporary artists gets sticky; even assuming good faith, we have our favorites. If we subtract a British artist in favor of an American, someone is bound to argue on behalf of the inclusion of more contemporary women artists from Russia, France, and India. In short, the notability of whoever is mentioned must transcend debate, and attempts to note particular artists can not be taken as all-encompassing. JNW (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if we want it to be a value in encyclopedia, and to become a serious source for research and not some kind of joke, then some contemporary British, Oragon and other artists will have to wait to become more notable. We have time, the century just astarted. 89.159.156.52 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK Tyrenius, can you please explain in what way Jenny Saville and Sarah Lucas and Tomma Abts have contributed to the history of women's art and have influenced life and art and culture, and gained encyclopedic notability, according to Wikipedia courtesy and civilized negotiation and in good faith. Try also to find some reliable sources in books, and not prizes and magazine and journals' occasional papers.89.159.156.52 (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Also please explin about the cultural influence of Linder Sterling and Ruth Rix and why people around the world, who are not gallerists of young British artists, should be interested.89.159.156.52 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To ip number 89.159.156.52, you deleted Lynda Benglis, Kara Walker, Shazia Sikander, Yayoi Kusama and several others - ALL OF WHOM - have articles on Wikipedia, and are notable, - Don't do it again...If you are an expert, open an account, and take those unnotable articles to WP:AfD, but not with an IP number, they won't let you. By the way Jenny Saville, Sarah Lucas and Tomma Abts are listed in a prominent contemporary art context, a status which they currently enjoy. Modernist (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agreeing with Modernist. Please study WP:V and WP:RS. You don't get to determine what is and isn't an acceptable source. You can find Sarah Lucas on the Tate web site. She was one of the original Young British Artists who showed at the seminal Freeze show and later in the Sensation exhibition which achieved world prominence. Jenny Saville is likewise one of the YBAs and was also in Sensation. There is some useful information about her on the Saatchi Gallery site. Tomma Abts won a world-famous prize in 2006, the Turner Prize. That alone establishes notability. I hope this helps. Tyrenius (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way although Jenny Saville, Sarah Lucas and Tomma Abts are listed in a prominent contemporary art context, (a status which they currently enjoy) no one has indicated that they changed the course of women's art. Although a case can be made for Kusama, Schneeman, Benglis, and Yoko Ono along with Eva Hesse and a few others since the 1960s. - Modernist (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is Women artists, not Women who changed the course of women's art. Tyrenius (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No this doesn't help. One big exhibition etc is not what I was expecting from editors here. In that case, why not put back the 21 Century category, and put those you seem to appreciate under the 21 century category as it was before. Perhaps this is a solution. At least this will respect artists like Yayoi Kusama and Yoko Ono who have carried work from the 20th to the 21th century and whose contribution is very significant to many art lovers, and who could remain under Contemporary Art section, while the new British artists from the list who seem to appear very recently and to impress mainly the British capitalistic system can be listed in the 21 Centruy new section. By the way, Yes, I am an expert, but for the moment it seems that I am not needed here. So I quit. 89.159.156.52 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To be as clear as possible beofre leaving this discussion: to Tyreniusy: when we look at philosophy section, we expect to find notable philosophers even though the title of the page only says "philosophy". The same goes for contemporary women artists, unless you wish that this category will be without credibility. A private collection web page is nice, but unencyclopedic. To Modernist: I wish to quote the 2 last sentences (last 2 lines of the page only) which are in my view problematic, and to put here for discussion the 2 sentences that I was proposing instead: 1--Here are the problematic 2 last sentences as it is now: "Artists on the list range from the well known (Tracey Emin, Paula Rego, Frida Kahlo, Annie Leibovitz) to the relatively unknown — Linder Sterling and Ruth Rix. Prominent Contemporary women artists also include Yoko Ono, Jenny Saville, Sarah Lucas, Tomma Abts (Turner Prize winner 2006), Kara Walker, Carolee Schneeman, Yayoi Kusama, Lynda Benglis, and Shazia Sikander among others." 2--And here are the 2 last sentences corrected in the way that I have proposed it: "Artists on the list range from the well known (Tracey Emin, Paula Rego, Frida Kahlo, Annie Leibovitz) to relatively unknown artists. Prominent Contemporary women artists also include Yoko Ono, Carolee Schneeman and Yayoi Kusama among others." In this way, until the argument will reach more agreement, we shall have in the last end of the Women Artists page, as JNW suggested, artists who gained "unquestionable and international notability", as is the case, in my view, in the whole text up to its last (quoted) 2 sentences. Take good care of this page, 89.159.156.52 (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

People disagree its the nature of the beast. We are all doing our best, WP:AGF. Modernist (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wimmin's contribution to Wikipedi are limited only to adding the last artist in the page to Wikipedia, this doesn't seem disinterested party. I still insist that the last list of young British artists is a promotion. Let the commercial Journalistic event of 2006 stay at least in the 2006 section, and do not push it back in time falsely into the to earlier century.89.159.156.52 (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest in all simplicity that international notability will remain a criteria here.84.192.183.17 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I further suggest, that few One-woman exhibitions in museums around the world, as well as books by notable art theorists (and not group national exhibitions or exhibitions in private galleries combined with local journals etc) will serve here as criteria to bring up references to individual artists. Otherwise the present period (be it Contemporary artists or Twenty-First Century) will become a promotional battle between Canadian, British, and soon other promoters, rather than a reliable encyclopedic source. 84.192.183.17 (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Issues in constructing a history of women artists

This section is an article in its own right and has been transferred to The depiction of women artists in art history, where it can be explored in depth. Tyrenius (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

After some efforts to get the page better, Tyrenius started again on his (or her) promotion of British artists connected to Saatchi gallery (and on whose sites he or she is working all the time on the Wikipedia). Enough is enough! I am going to take these new names out. Let these artists first do some international museum shows and be respected by the international at community. 89.159.156.52 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning on your talk page to desist from personal attacks.[2] You have succeeded in removing information about the Turner Prize, which is a major museum show. The other artists also have an international reputation. I have restored them. Tyrenius (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius, you 'attack' just like dot52 did. It's a simple difference of opinion. It does appear you are lending far more credibility to the Saatchi gallery than is generally given these days. Saatchi is one wealthy arts patron whose tastes are increasingly ignored outside the UK since the close of the Whitney's Shock Art Exhibit of 1999. You are focusing on an era that has come and gone and insisting it defines women's art today. The term contemporary is specific in art - like modern, for instance. Your editing is bullish through your constant reversions. Please focus on your own expertise rather than deleting others'. WP:BOLD Campcloudrimwaldo (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a difference of opinion. You inserted a list of artists, most of whom don't even have articles.[3] Becca Bernstein does (created by you) and the references in the article are somewhat flimsy to say the least. It's not a dead cert to even pass WP:NOTABILITY, and yet you quibble over artists that have had international mainstream coverage. I have not mentioned the Saatchi Gallery. I find it surprising—and rather under-rating these artists' own abilities—that the only way you can conceive of them is in terms of Saatchi. Tomma Abts has nothing to do with Saatchi. Stella Vine was launched into the media by him, but very quickly forged her own path. As an aside, regarding Charles Saatchi, I find this observation in The Times of November 2007 to be pertinent: he is "Still one of our most important collectors, despite a certain amount of art world snobbery suggesting the contrary."[4] You say his tastes are "increasingly ignored". Really? He launched Damien Hirst and considers him a "genius"[5]. Hirst is the world's most expensive artist.[6] It seems to me that Saatchi's tastes have dominated world art.

As for my "bullish reversions", I take it you mean the removal of text such as, "The twentieth century brought many new opportunities for women in the arts and they flooded into the openings that arose in all media. The new century also saw an array of new movements and rapid transitions", which violates all the core wiki editing policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V.

I suggest you ease up a bit, familiarise yourself with wiki protocols, which are very different to art world ones, and take advantage of experienced editors such as Johnbod and Modernist to help form this article on an important subject, which is certainly in need of attention. Take a look at some featured articles to see the ideal.

Tyrenius (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Delighted to see Tyrenius, Johnbod and Modernist lend their efforts to this, because each brings knowledge and experience to the task, without a desire to promote particular artists or POV. JNW (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Saatchi launched Damien Hirst fifteen years ago. There are young artists with more influence on art today who were just learning the color wheel when Saatchi promoted Hirst. My main issue with the editing on this page is the repeated exclusion of the 21st century, and the wrongful insistence that the contemporary art section is enough. Deleting sections effects other Wiki pages when there are other solutions. Your example of edited text is of little interest to me. My interest lies in the current trends of art and artists working today. I started creating and editing pages based on that interest when a simple search for living, working, important 21st century artists on wikipedia resulted in very little. I may not edit Wikipedia as a full-time occupation, like some of you apparently do, but that does not undervalue my contributions or the subjects I've chosen. Waiting 10-15 years after an artist's work has first been publicly recognized as significant is not a formula for encyclopedic notability. WP:DBTN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campcloudrimwaldo (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I assure you the 21st Century is not being excluded. Tomma Abts won the Turner in it and Stella Vine became prominent in it. But of course there is much more to be added. This is only at the beginning of this section. Please read up on the policies and referencing system which has all been placed on your talk page. That will make it a lot easier to create content which meets wiki's requirements. You are right about the deficiency in art articles, and you are welcome to create them, but they need to be created properly, which doesn't happen overnight. There is quite a steep learning curve. Maybe you would be interested in starting Women artists in the 21st Century. Just click the red link to start. Tyrenius (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No text has been deleted, or names removed, as a result of changing the "C21st" section to a "contemporary artists" one, which has clear concensus support here. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Title change?

Does anyone else feel that grammatically "women artists" is not right? I feel that "female artists" would be more suitable, any thoughts or suggestions? TheOneException (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Society of Female Artists was established in 1855; it is now called The Society of Women Artists.[7] I think it is the more PC term nowadays. Tyrenius (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The recent discussion

After reading the recent discussion and following contributers to their own pages: I agree with the persons who insist to put only those women artists whose art has gained international (and not simply commercial and local) recognition. The criteria should be at least few One-woman shows in international museums as someone suggested, and essays in books written by distinguished art historians, and not collectors and interested national art magazines. Only in this way, I believe, the Wikipedia page on Women artists will contribute to the issue of womens' art rather than lead to degrade it. Putting all these names of artists who has no influence on the international scene, (only because they showed in GB or has been collected etc.,), is not in honor and respect to the subject of Women artists, quite the contrary: the credibility of really prominent women artists is getting lost, as the whole section is getting less and less credible. I can only congratulate Modernist for adding really prominent artists to the list. Contrary to Modernist, the interests of the other editors involved is very clear from the outside. Each Canadian and YBA artists that they have added have no influence that I am aware of. A page in Wikipedia is not a reason to be included in this section. Artists of the 21th century who do not have yet international influential achievement in the field of art should wait until they gain a significant value. Nobody outside GB cares who DIDN'T win the Turner prize. With some distance, it is easy to see this. When I see all the attempt to add women artists of no significance to the list (some attempts failed and some returned again) I ask myself if this is not on the way to destroy the section.Contemplating21 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC) In an attempt to keep the credibility of 2 major women artists who have become indeed icons in the international feminist community, I have deleted the name of an artist for whom we can't claim such status. I try to bring into the discussion the idea, that if we do not exaggerate less major artists we shall keep up the credibility of the whole matter of women artists. Contemplating21 (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this, though I would be happy to remove it again if concensus here supports that. The passage, with words removed by Contemplating21 in bold, is: "Figures like Artemesia Gentileschi and Frida Kahlo, and to a lesser extent Gwen John, emerged from relative obscurity to become feminist icons."

Whilst we are witch-hunting, can we agree to lose: Elizabeth Catlett, Dulah Marie Evans, Nellie Walker and maybe Louise Berliawsky Nevelson? Ideally we should have a list, but pending that we should, as Contemplating says, go for those with some international reputation. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's been reverted again - now "to a lesser extent" is weasel words, it seems! Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gwen John figures already in the section. To add descriptions like icon to a "lesser degree" is senseless. Editors in the 20th and contemporary sections need to keep to consensuous proportions, in order for these sections to gain dignified credibility.Contemplating21 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In its context, being an "icon to a lesser extent" is weasel words indeed, because either one is, or one isn't, an icon. The two other artists mentioned there are icons. Why to lessen the impact of the idea? The name deleted is quite unknown.Contemplating21 (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unknown to you, perhaps! There seem to be five recent biographies, plus her letters etc etc. But she is not a C21st artist certainly. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, we each can bring something to the table. Probably some names can be withdrawn. But Louise Nevelson is very well-known in the U.S., and though the point on 'icons' is well-taken, Gwen John is far from unknown, and has undergone a robust reassessment in the past several decades. JNW (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree to these 2 points. These two artists should be in the general section, of course, like the other artists. But, I see among the artists listed in 20th century and in the Contemporary section a number of figures who had became, in my view, international icons. Yet, I think that we can't simply add figures to the "icons" sentence in a casual manner. With due respect, only very few have reached a status such as the two mentioned. I would not add the idea of a "lesser degree icons" which to me seems absurd. Contemplating21 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, If this will have concensus here, I added the word Eminent at the beginning of the 20th century section. (Eminent artists include). So, the figure discussed, John, is in this list in any case. As for being an "icon", check the dictionary, or perhaps lets leave it as it is now.Contemplating21 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OOOOUups, I see that Johnbod objected in the second. I have no problem with you objection. I tried to solve a problem. Your speedy revert is OK with me.Contemplating21 (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Men artists

I was doing some research on the differences in art done by men and women. I've found this article on female artists, but why isn't there an article on male artists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.229.35 (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

the opening of this article is (opinion)

extremely weak, and while women have at times been referred to as the weaker sex, we really should be able to do better than this. For example, is the phrase, In the West the Middle Ages were arguably the best period for women artists; suggesting that the Middle Ages were better times for women than today? Or yesterday? Because that's what it is saying. I'm going to toss in something just to see if that suggests something to someone else who can give us a somewhat more dynamic opening. Carptrash (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that Indian quote needs to go somewhere else, but the craft/art question does need to be addressed somewhere - new section?, and "pre-modern" added to the medieval bit (which is probably mine). The whole article needs some pulling together, having begun long ago as a truly desperate set of student notes. By all means have a go at a rewrite. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I put that Indian quote there, at the beginning, to try and mitigate the opening statement, "Women have been involved in making art in most times and places" just a bit. By shifting the emphasis away from the West it seemed to make it a bit more universal. Also the 3,000 years bit predates the Middle Ages by 2,000 years, another perhaps futile attempt to prop up the way the article starts. This article should be about all women artists, or its title changed. But every step in the right direction is . . . . . . . . . ....... well, a step in the right direction. eeek Carptrash (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bracha Ettinger

The inclusion or non-inclusion of Bracha L. Ettinger in this article should be decided by someone who has knowledge in the field and access to relevant sources. Please don't let trolls drag you into lave revert wars. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lempicka musician.jpg

The image Image:Lempicka musician.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. --01:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved, Fair Use Rationale now added and supplied for this and other articles...Modernist (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Depiction of women artists in art history

The material of the article The depiction of women artists in art history was originally part of the article on women artists and should have remained so. It makes no sense to separate the material as a separate article. MdArtLover (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

this phrase was tagged with "citation needed"

some time ago, while discussing Aleksandra Ekster.

"who was a founder of Art Deco."

After searching far and wide and looking at as much of her work as possible been unable to find verification of this statement. I don't mind being wrong if someone can substantiate this claim. If you can, I did the same thing at her article. Carptrash (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs a serious rewrite

This article, whatever its merits, is seriously lacking inline citations. The list of reference books is impressive, and probably a good place to start. Now somebody has to go through the article and add references to everything possible. Any thoughts? Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes.start as soon as possible. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added one -- oh, whoops, it accidentally got deleted with the Gertrude Abercrombie stuff. Okay, now I've re-added it, a reference to Elisabeth Vigee-Lebrun from Heller's seminal work.Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this article treats the surrealists, but there could be a place for Abercrombie in it. I was not meaning to sugest to you remove her, I'm more of an inclusionist than not. Carptrash (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't remove her, it was Tyrenius. Please see my comments in the previous topic. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Gertrude Abercrombie

I would request that we keep the reference to her. Yes, her article is a stub, but at least it's not a redlink, of which there are several in this article. She has importance, it just hasn't been elaborated yet. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why does she get a particular mention when there are dozens of very prominent artists just included as a link at the start of the 20th century section? Clubmarx (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is important to keep in mind that this article is not a substitute for an Encyclopedia of Women Artists. Using lesser known artists is fine but there needs to be a reason as to why they are used, just as big name artists should not automatically be included. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Abercrombie does not seem to show up in the Smithsonian Archives of American Art database, which suggests that few if any major museums include her art. If I wanted to see some of it, where would/should I look? Carptrash (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That is very odd, given this page: http://americanart.si.edu/collections/search/artwork/?id=41 , which shows her painting "The Stroll" as in the Smithsonian American Art Museum, "Gift of the Gertrude Abercrombie Trust". She is significant, even if she has only a stub. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Another artwork, "White Cat" is also in the Smithsonian. It can be seen at http://americanart.si.edu/collections/search/artwork/?id=42 .Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also the Art Institute of Chicago has Abercrombie works and held a major retrospective in 1977, the year of her death.Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It is sort of amusing to me that the Smithsonian DB [8]would not include a work in their own collection, but oh well. In any case I'm not about to do anything drastic here. Or anywhere for that matter except drive home in this snow that's coming down. Carptrash (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Tyrenius has removed it until there's a consensus. I'm okay with that. So. Is Abercrombie important enough to be in an article this general? Does she compare to, say, Victorine Meurent, or Séraphine Louis? (And what about the other women surrealists I had mentioned in the article: Leonora Carrington, Kay Sage, Dorothea Tanning, and Remedios Varo. Should they be included?) Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

How about an article Women Surrealists? This article is not very good at the moment with the massive list of 20th century women artists, best moved to List of 20th century women artists. Ty 21:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think I'd only be able to manage a stub, or beginning, unless someone else wants to have a go. But I suppose it's worth doing. Only not today -- I've run out of time at the moment. Yet -- couldn't we have a small mention of surrealists in this article? Abercrombie is arguable, but those others I mentioned are solid. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any reason not to mention major women surrealists in this article. Sources to validate the choice would be best. See WP:REFB if help needed on referencing. Ty 23:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else bothered

by the number of artists in the article whose names appear in red ink? I am in favor of removing them or starting a series of ridiculously petit stubs. Almost anything is (opinion) better than red. Also, while I am here, it seems to me that the lists of names should be removed to lists of names. List of women artists from the Baroque Era or whatever. There is a 20th Century list and I feel (because men have feelings too) that there should be a list for every section that begins or includes a list of names. Put another way, if an artist is not included in the text then she belongs in a list. Somewhere else. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the subject and the overall historical neglect of the principles the red ink doesn't bother me. I'd rather know about them then not. Try to reference the red links before removal...Modernist (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Red links have always been a staple of articles, and even appear in featured articles. They are the prompt for further article creation. There should only be a red link when an article on the subject is viable. Ty 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The red links here are for artists from the pre-Renaissance to the 19th century, which suggests that they are good faith additions, and may yet be the subjects of articles. For me the red flag (no pun meant) goes up for red links of contemporary artists, with the attendant likelihood of promotion. JNW (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I'm happy with the red as is. But what about the lists of names at the start of the sections? Is this a good way to deal with all the artists who need to be acknowledged but do not fit into the text? Or, should there be lists maintained elsewhere? Carptrash (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it doesn't win any style prizes. Perhaps the most important artists of each era can be named, where appropriate, in the text, and at the end of each section there can be a list of other prominent artists for that period. JNW (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The lists don't bother me that much, obviously each section does need a lot of work, to me this is an article still waiting to happen, although as a start, as an overall deposit of raw material its okay...Modernist (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this reference correct?

In the paragraph below I believe the reference is supposed to be Anastasia instead of the way it is referenced.

"Christine de Pizan, who was a remarkable late medieval French writer, rhetorician, and critic, wrote City of Women in 1405 about an allegorical city in which independent women lived free from the slander of men. In her work she included real women artists, such as Anastaise, who was considered one of the best Parisian illuminators, although none of her work has survived. Other humanist texts led to increased education for Italian women."

I happened upon it when I wanted to read about her and the link from the name gave me zilch on wiki. So I goggled it and got this link for wki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasia_%28artist%29. This sounds like the artist the author intended on referencing.

Thought you might want to know.

Thanks!

-ACE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.232.79 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Title Change? Female Artists?

Women artists is very awkward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.166.174 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, women is not an adjective. Although the use of women as an adjective (women artists, women writers, women xxx,...) has become somewhat of a common usage, it is still not correct LHOON (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

My Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, does include "woman" and "women" as adjectives, so it is not just a case of common usage. English, language that it is, is always changing. Kind of like the weather. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the title is fine...Modernist (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I just cut this out

from the external links section,

• Guerrilla Girls on Tour
  

because, even though it seems like a lot of fun, I don't feel that we should be linking to every interesting thing that women artists are doing now. How do you feel about this? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

the first influential woman artist (of that era)

The following should be re-inserted because this is the first influentual woman artist. She influenced the Sessesionists and Gustav Klimt. She and her husdand's work influenced art and design in Europe at the time. This was properly referenced to a Scottish Government Website, and is also mentioned on other Wiki pages. This influence was not as obvious as some other women, but the lack of education on the topic by most artists, including the editor who erased it is part of the problem with the history of women in art in general. I doubt there was a woman artist who did original work this early on, and who had an influence like this, among any female artist before her. This was probably the first original modern female artist.

Of note for originality and influence early on, at the turn of the century, was Margaret MacDonald (artist) (5 November 1865–10 January 1933), a Scottish artist whose art works became one of the defining features of the "Glasgow Style" during the 1890s and early 20th century, and who collaborated on art and design work with her husband, the architect and designer Charles Rennie Mackintosh, in such works that had considerable influence in Europe. She also exhibited with Mackintosh at the 1900 Vienna Secession, where her work is thought to have had an influence on the Secessionists Gustav Klimt

Margaret MacDonald, Opera Of The Winds, 1903.

Margaret MacDonald, The May Queen, 1900. -

Margaret MacDonald

The Room de Luxe - 1903 - at The Willow Tearooms, in Glasgow, features furniture and interior design by Mackintosh and Margaret Macdonald.

As I've explained, the 20th century section must not be co-opted in order to satisfy your advocacy of this artist. She may merit mention along with numerous other artists within the 20th century section. As well, the Scottish Government website is not the best scholarly source--perhaps you can provide further references, per WP:RELIABLE. Thank you, JNW (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Then you should take out all the other individuals you have left highlighted in the article, and their images, since they are only important in your opinion, and this is highly debatable. Your choices that you leave in (while deleting more important artists), have more to do with bias. than historical accuracy. My references were from a UK Government Arts Website which is a valid website, as you could see if you looked, and also referenced to Charles Rene Mackintosh wikipedia page, and Margaret MacDonald (artist) wikipedia page, both of which also say the same things.

Many things: first, thank you for bringing this artist to my attention--she merits mention. However, she is in no way the first influential woman artist--please read some art history. Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources. Also, I did not create or add substantially to the article, so it does not reflect my opinion. It reflects years of work by numerous editors, and you may feel free to accuse them each of bias, though that's not a winning strategy. Neither is issuing ultimatums based on your opinions as to what stays and what goes. Again, as I suggested at your talk page, I urge you to read Wikipedia's guidelines. JNW (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Please tell me who was the first woman artist who not only created an original style, but also influenced other (male) artists and designers? Most women artists before this were following an established style in a very mainstream way. You decided to not delete other people highlighted. If you did not know about this artist, your education was not well done in regards to art history, and I don't think you should be editing on this page, if you did not know about this very famous artist. EVERYONE knows about this artist. She is in all the traditional (old school) history books on modern art, where almost no other women are mentioned in that era at the turn of the century (and in all the more recent history books.)

Here are more references to MacDonald:

^ The Chronicle: the letters of Charles Rennie Mackintosh to Margaret Macdonald Mackintosh, Pamela Robertson, ed.

^ See http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5066453

Again, thank you for bringing the artist to my attention. As for the rest of your statements, as well as your editing history, it's all here for other editors to read. JNW (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply: You keep thanking me for bringing this artist to your attention, and yet you think you are in a position to be an editor here? Again, anyone who does not know this artist is clearly not qualified to be editing this page. And commenting on my editing history is just getting petty now. In my view, you have been vandalizing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Questioning any constructive longterm editor's qualifications and accusing them of vandalism really doesn't work. Now, I've asked you to read guidelines, which include WP:CIVILITY. We're getting close to a report at WP:ANI--would you like to go on in this vein? JNW (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your tone is completely deroagatory. I have just reported you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, you haven't. But I've sought administrative assistance [9]. My appreciation for bringing this artist to discussion was genuine. So, too, have been my suggestions re: learning to edit here constructively. JNW (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Great. You can start by first emulating that which you would wish other's to mimic.  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not true there, either; [10]. That's why the transparency of edit histories is beneficial. JNW (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for re-instating my post ! At the end of the 19th century, Glasgow Art School had deliberate efforts to enroll female artists, and her work is part of that great city's history. She was one of the first woman artists who created her own unique style, and influenced art in Europe. I think this is significant because of when this example of an independent woman artist occurred - late 19th, early 20 century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So I am going to jump in. First of all, anyone qualified to edit on wikipeedia signs their posts. They don't make a machine do it for them What would Ms. MacDonald think about haing a machine do your work for you? Secondly, regarding " She is in all the traditional (old school) history books on modern art," she does not appear in the first book I looked in , and although I expect a heated reply as to why that book is One Wrong, the work "all'" is now into question. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply: I don't know what you are talking about signing my work. I am not a Wikipedia geek and have no intention of becoming one. I don't see your name. Also, which book did you look in? Finally, your reference to heated replies is in the eye of the beholder, and seems to be one rule for you, and a different rule for others, since you are doing the same. It seems to me, that if you don't know who Margaret MacDonald is, then it is questionable whether you should be making editing decisions on any article about Women in Art. This is not a judgement, just a simple fact. I am completely amazed that this site has existed for years, and has not mentioned her. I was starting to think Wikipedia was getting more credible, but this gaping hole for years, really shows it is not worth it. This is quoted from Encyclopedia Britannica:""Similarly exploring issues of form, and inspired in part by the theories and work of the American architect Frank Lloyd Wright, architects Charles Rennie Mackintosh and J. Herbert McNair joined artists (and sisters) Margaret and Frances Macdonald in a revolutionary period of creativity beginning in the 1890s. This group in Glasgow, Scotland, combined rectangular structure with romantic and religious imagery in their unorthodox furniture, crafts, and graphic designs. In a poster it made for the Glasgow Institute of Fine Arts (1895), for example, the group’s emphasis upon rising vertical composition is evident."" --- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1032864/graphic-design/242768/Art-Nouveau?anchor=ref845055

Bear in mind this is an article about worldwide female artists. The entry for MacDonald is clearly justified and a short paragraph has been added by JNW. Anything larger would probably be an imbalance to the world view, in my opinion. If you have a suggestion for better wording of the paragraph, by all means suggest it here (as long as it is verified by the available sources). Either way, we need to get away from personalising this discussion and try and talk about the subject instead.

The big difficulty about articles like "Women artists" is is sooo broad it is difficult to do any one artist justice. I notice there is a full Wikipedia article on McDonald and I'm sure any additional information will be more than welcome there! Sionk (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Carptrash, your point is well taken--MacDonald is not uniformly or amply represented in many art history books. Nor is the mention in Britannica terribly helpful, peripheral as it is. That said, her notability was never in question here. This was always a matter of balance and proportion, per Sionk. To clarify, I merely restored her name to the article; it was Johnbod who added a generous paragraph, given that MacDonald's name and presence in modern art anthologies does not rival those of, for instance, O'Keeffe, Kollwitz, or Kahlo. Unless several reliable sources exist to support the claim at the top of this section, citing her as 'the first influential woman artist' is original research, WP:OR. This apparently constitutes an editor's first sustained attempt to add content, and their efforts are welcome. They must, however, refrain from insulting editors, some of whom have made tens of thousands of contributions here, and instead seek to proceed with a willingness to edit by encyclopedic guidelines, which are concerned, above all, with supporting good scholarship. JNW (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply: --- First of all I don't eat fish :-) Secondly, you won't find a significant or important historian, writing a detailed history of modern art, leaving her out of the book. Thirdly, I predict you will change your mind one day, and realize that it is the uniqueness of a woman at the turn of the century, creating original and influentual work, that is of significance here, and someone working 30-40 years later is able to be in that position due to the pioneering originals that went before. The only people who are selected out of the mass on this page, are those who stand out as significantly different in their contribution. That is the point. Anyways, as a man, who cares about the complete telling of the history of women in society, I am just very glad it was restored :-)

(Mostly to 2 Wrongs) Signing your postings. Wikipedia geek or not, editors are supposed to end all their postings with four of these ~. that let's other editors know who is writing. it does not have to be your real name, mine is not. If you were a bit more of a wikipedia geek your would have noticed that I referenced the art book that I looked in. The answer to your question was already posted. My mentioning a possible "heated" reply is no double standard, many of us do it (indulge ourselves in heated responses). I never said that I don't know who MM was. That is called "projection", wherein one assumes that someone else is thinking such and such and procedes from that point. You paranoia seems to be peeking out a bit. That she was inspired by FLW is interesting, perhaps she was also inspired by Marion Mahony, Wright's main draftsperson for a while. But I am sure that you know all about her, since it seems that your belief is that in order to edit here one must know everything about the subject. Cheney was a respected art historian, writing a 384 page book about modern art, with no mention of MM. Carptrash (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What Carptrash said. There's a reason I've persistently urged TW to read the site's guidelines: writing here is about using reliable sources, not synthesizing them in order to reach one's own conclusions and push them in an article. As I wrote above, MacDonald is not uniformly or amply represented in many art history books. Nor does it matter what you, or I, think about her work. Wikipedia does not traffic in revisionism, nor cater to our personal beliefs--if that's important to me, I can indulge my editorial desires in published media, where I'm compensated for doing so. But an encyclopedia attempts neutrality. At the top I characterized this as advocacy, and so it is. JNW (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

I thought I should explain my removal of a paragraph which has been in the article for almost eight years. The paragraph begins "In the Autumn of 2006, the British art magazine Latest Art polled thirty experts to compose a list of the thirty greatest women artists ever." This appears to be completely inaccurate. The Latest Art article does not claim to be profiling "the thirty greatest women artists ever", but merely informally listing "some of the best artists in the world". It does not seem to be true that thirty experts were polled; actually, sixteen more or less random people each contributed one to four blurbs on some artist they happened to know of, plus the magazine's features editor did five. The complete list of qualifications given for one of the "experts": he "writes short stories, is mad about Tottenham Hotspur, and rides a bike". Three of the items were contributed by a high school student. And four were written by a cartoonist whose work appears in the magazine; his entire entry for one artist is "Piss-artist (dec'd)" and that for another one is "Giving toilet humour a bad name..." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

List of 20th century women artists

At Tyrenius' suggestion, I've just started this article. But it's tiny and I have limited time. If you can, please add to it. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest Swiss surrealist Meret Oppenheim is added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.10.149 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Pity not to use this work

Anne Vallayer-Coster, Attributes of Music, 1770

Anne Vallayer-Coster, by Alexander Roslin, 1770

Even if it is not a self-portrait it is depicting the artist herself and this article is about the artists themselves, not about their works. Attributes of Music is a fine painting but I think people reading the article would like to know about her more than about the attributes of the music painting. Paradoxically is it a way of making her anonymous. I imagine if people want to know what he painted they simply click on the link. Hafspajen (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's the opposite. She's notable for her paintings, not because she was painted by Roslin. Ewulp (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite so, Ewulp, she is extremly notable and talented. What I meant was that people looking for her would like to know how she looked like... You can think of it like a photo. I mean when people read the article, most people I think would like to know how the artist's looked like. Most of the pictures depict the artists if any depiction is available. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women artists on Wikipedia... I mean showing how she looked like is rather essential. I bet Roslin painted her because he thought she was great. As far as I know it was a present from him to her, and made for her, and nobody payed for it. Or maybe it was her who painted it too, sources differ. Either way, the painting is used everywhere as a portrait of her. We use it in the article too.

Hafspajen (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not use both, by the way? Hafspajen (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary and arguably creates a WP:BALASPS problem, i.e., why does this artist get two jpgs when everybody else has just one?

What do you think of the 20th century section? I would be opposed to replacing the artworks with photograph mug shots, and I don't think we need both. In other articles it has not been deemed essential to show how Pre-Raphaelites or Young British Artists or Expressionists look; better to see The Scream than a photo of Munch or his self-portrait. Ewulp (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Apologies for not realizing the ambiguity created with the proposed new title. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 11:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Women artists → Women in art – The current article title does not adequately represent the topic being discussed in the prose. SSTflyer 17:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose this article does not cover the subject of female subjects as found in art, like the Mona Lisa, fertility goddess sculptures, depictions of Athena, etc -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I do think however that the redirect Women in art should be turned into an article citing the works discussing this (such as Invisible Women, The Obstacle Race,and others. There is a corresponding category on Commons, so it should be pretty easy to build with supporting illustrations. Jane (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per the IP. A move to the singular form might be good though. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Women of color missing

This article focuses mostly on white women in art which is a major misrepresentation of women in art. With resect to you two smaller section including women of color, there are mostly just a list on names with tags. I believe the purpose of this page should be to shed light on all women artist considering how marginalized women artist are. I suggest possibly and 'minorities in art" of "WOC in art" section to begin with. The very first sentence of this article includes and ignores every woman artist who is not of a European descent. Wonderful women of color artist such as Mya Torres should be included with some photos of her work. Perffem1989 (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Perfferm

You're right. The article should either be renamed or reworked to be more inclusive. Would you like to work on the additions?

In addition, right now there is a fair amount of prose that are actually lists of women artists. It would seem that this could be moved to a list and then have see alsos for each century for the list of women. And, then discuss some of the key artists from each century from a broader perspective. Does anyone else have a thought about this?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

-- It is hard to find any before about the 19th century. Please add any you know. Edmonia Lewis is in there, late 19th century is African American-Native American. Before that, very hard to find individual names for women of color or worldwide, in art. Would be great if you know of any names. - Tommy Barlow