Julie Martello

Hi Julie,

I'd be happy to help however I can. At the moment I have to rush out the door and take my daughter to school, and head for work. I'll check back mid-day and drop you anouther note. Akradecki 14:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, work is done for the day, so before I head home, I thought I'd drop you a line. First, I think there's enough folks around who do take this project seriously that it'll survive, but it's not always a pretty sight! I guess it's a matter of perspective. I work in a high-stress life-critical environment, so stuff that happens in wikiworld really isn't that important nor do I take it personally. I'd suggest if you're gonna get into this, to pledge to yourself that you'll always remember what this is...just a bunch of electrons making a screen glow. If someone does or says something to irritate you, even if you're right, keep a level head, stick to the policies and guidelines, and you should come out ok in the end. Yes, there's some hotheads, but there's enough level-headed editors and admins around that, if you're doing your part, will back you up. You have, unfortunately, chosen a subject area that is prone to this stuff, but hey, that's just a continuation of the wierd bickering that goes on in the art world, eh?

As for using your real name or not, there's folks that argue both sides. My real name has been spread far and wide on the internet long before I started here (due mainly to my freelance photography and history writing), so I don't care if folks know who I really am. That's gotta be a decision that you have to carefully make. \

All that said, how can I help you? One thing I noticed that I'll pass on, be sure to always sign your messages by simply typing four tildas (~~~~) and the system will automatically put in your signature and the time stamp. Also, you can customize your signature (a lot of folks do, I don't get into such things myself) under the "my preferences" tab. If you're looking for ways to contribute, one of the most critical things to such an encyclopedia ... and one of the things most neglected ... are citations and references in articles. If you're familiar with the art world, you probably have access to resources that would help a lot. Feel free to "patrol" art-related articles, looking for unreferenced statements, and adding in references if you have them. Looking forward to chatting more and working with you! (I checked out your user page, and found that you were born the same year my neice was!) Take care... Akradecki 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Julie, you're most welcome! I know what you mean by being proud of what you've written. Are you a journalism type? Have you been published in print media yet? Akradecki 23:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick look at your contributions to Art history...you seem to know what you're talking about, and you write well...refreshingly so, actually. Since you've provided some valuable info, you might want to go back and footnote your sources. Details of how are at WP:CITE, and I'd be happy to walk you through the process, if you need it. Akradecki 02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Art history

Hi Julie, I took a look at what you did, especially the definition section, and it's excellent. So good, that there's only one little thing that I'd suggest to improve it: you really need to cite a book or two for where you got the definitions, or at least a book or two that support how you've defined it. Other editors around here are really keen to make sure that there's "no original research" (WP:OR) in the articles, and no matter how good your writing, they might jump on it if there's no citations. Think of it as a college research paper...I don't know about yours, but mine were always harping on citing sources. Other than that, it's great! Keep up the good work! Akradecki 15:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!!

That was really sweet of you...thanks! Akradecki 18:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Advice #1

Always sign your messages with the 4 ~. it gives me, or anyone else who wishes to jump in, a link to get back to you right away. Advice #2. Find a friendly admin and ask them to megre the two articles. Be sure to include your reasoning and perhaps links to places where it has been posted and discussed. I rarely do this sort of thing myself and have a few admins that's i've cultivated relationships with, but cast about and you'll find one. Advice #3. When you make edits in an article that you care about, hit the WATCH button. This means that it will show up on your watchlist and you will know when changes happen. When i see an edit by a number - someone not registered - i almost always check it out for vandalism, and probably revert 4 or 5 a day. Pablo Picasso for example, probably gets vandalized half a dozen times a day. It has been nice running into you and i look forward to a long and satisfying working relationship. Fame is fleeting, life is good. Carptrash 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Julie, mind if I poke my nose in here? You might want to read Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for some background. Before merging, it's always recommended to put the merge tags in place and give folks time to comment on the idea. You don't have to be an admin to actually do the merge. I've done it before and it's not that hard, just have to follow the steps carefully. It's always wise to consider all the ramifications. I did a merge a while ago (resulting page was X-38 Crew Return Vehicle and even though discussion at the time was in support of it, discussion after the merge was very much against it, and it turns out that I really regretted doing it, and am now working to seperate the two articles out again. Just some food for thought. Akradecki 19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Art

The only thing I was a little irritated by in your lede is "Art is the word we use"-- it seemed a little redundant, so I did my best to simplify it. But I found that when I tried to make the rest of the lede more specific, like specifying "purposefully created or arranged images and objects," it seemed to disturb the flow of the paragraph. So, I have to say, you've written an excellent lede! Ashibaka tock 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mannerism

Hi Julie,

I've just reinstated the first paragraph, and the other paragrph that was removed.

Both of them contained valuable information which you lost, and both of them were accurately expressed. The references to two 20th century styles were relevant, because they were drawing accurate comparisons.

To take the second point first- The term "Mannerism" was already in use during that period. This was not a style that had a term applied later, like "Gothic". That is the point that the writer is making when he says that the term "resurfaced". If you remove the definitive description then you must removed the term "resurfaced" because it applies to what you have just taken out.

First paragraph- "Mannerism" is a term applied to a style (or an approach...). Not "Mannerism is an artistic style usually applied to painting....." Mannerism isn't a style that is (or was) applied to painting. Mannerism was a term that described the type of art that was produced when artists let their individuality emerge. There was no "fusion".

The point here is that it would be wrong to consider that there was a synthetic application of style. This movement was about breaking away from rules, not merely applying a new set of rules, or a new artistic theory. So to describe Mannerism as an applied style is innaccurate.

Some of the articles, particularly the leading paragraphs, seem verbose and pedantic because the writer is trying to be extremely precise. This is an encyclopedia, so we have to bear with pedantry and verbosity in the name of accuracy. I have helped the first paragraph a little with some slight editting.

--Amandajm 08:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Art History

Hi Julie!

I just took a little look at the Art History article.

Do you READ what you are changing?

The previous writer stated that there were several ways of looking at Art history.

You then dropped his most learned and scholarly introduction which included a quotation from a renowned Historian (Ernst Gombrich) in favour of the one single narrowest possible definition. Art history is this!

You need to go back and read thoroughly the text of what you are editting and try to understand it! The writer goes on to explain the "contextual" approach. That's the term that describes the approach that you are taking. It's a valid approach, it's certainly the Sydney University approach, but it's not the only approach. There's a bigger world of Art out there and academics, art critics, and little old nuns all have their own way of seeing it.

I have rewritten your paragraph, but because of the succinct summing-up of the contextural approach by the previous writer, even in its editted state, it doesn't need inclusion.

I am sure that you will find my comments here to be unpleasant and disconcerting. But as a person with a Masters degree, you have already confronted a considerable amount of accademic criticism. This is a very scholarly article with which you are dealing. There are a number of such art historical matters on Wikipedia that have been handled with a similar degree of scholarship, forethought and balanced consideration. My suggetion is, read well and tread lightly.

See below

Art history as History

When studied as a university subject, sometimes as "History of Art", a narrower definiton may be employed, placing particular emphasis on the study of objects of art in their historical context and the consideration of their content and style as historic documents and reflections of other aspects of history.

In this context the discipline of art history is distinguished from art criticism, as being concerned with placing a relative artistic value on individual works with respect to others of generally comparable style, or giving sanction to an entire style or movement; and art theory, as being concerned with the fundamental nature of art and related more to aesthetics and determination of the essence of beauty and artistic appeal than to "History".

The following questions are asked concerning each art object, "How did the artist come to create his work?" "Who were his patrons? his teachers? his disciples?" "What historical forces shaped the artist's oeuvre, and how did he and his creation in turn affect the course of events, artistic, political and social?"

please excuse the typos

--Amandajm 09:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Julie,

I apologise for my patronising manner.

Thank you for getting back to me and for pointing out that it was actually you that wrote the definitionn. I like the definition, apart from the fact that it gets a bit long winded. It follows on well from the pprevious intro.

What I'm not happy aboout is the new intro, which has pushed the previous intro further down. I think that it is an altogether too narrow way of perceiving what constitutes Art History. I was around at the time tht there was a rewriting of the definition of wwwhat constitutes Art History. I didn't agree with the narrowness of the definition then, and I don't agree with it now. In particular, I didn't agree with the narrow and accdemically exclusive style of teaching that it generated in which there was little or no place for stylistic analysis and aestheticcs, and a philosophy that works of art had little or no intrinsic (let us say artistic) value. To put it at base level, I believe that a student of Art historyy ought to be able to discuss the colours harmonies in a painting jsut as well as they can discuss its social implications. If they are unable to do this after three years of tertiary studdy, then their ability as Art Historians is very seriously impaired. They are simply an Historian who utilises the content of pictures (etc) as one of their primary sources.

As far as I am concerned the original intro, backed by your definition is perfectly adequate.

As for my typos- I'm a dyslxic person with a bloody-miinded keyboard, and a broadband conection that drops out frequently. It takes hours to write anything and even more hhours to edit it and send it without loosing it. I concernn myself with mmy accuracy on encyclopedic pagges and try to fix the doubled, misplaced and missing letters. I askk someone more competent to check my spelling.. Such is life. So I don't woorry abouut typos in messages unless they appear to alter the meaning. Yes I have kncked the crumbs ouut of the keybooard and adjusted the speed.

Also, if you have a look at the little options boxes up above the box you type in, ou'll find a scribbly markk that allows you to add your signature and timme automatically, so that it then connects back to your personal page. Until you save it, it loooks like a row of little scrolly things.

--Amandajm 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Freud and Leonardo

(This shouldd probably be on the discussion page). Stuff Dan Brown! Could you please refer to the man as Leonardo, not da Vinci? That is applying modernn social conventions to a previous era.

Secondly, if a modern Historian feels free to interpret Renaissance History from paintings, then it must be equally vvalid for a modern psycchanalyst to interpret his subject from paintings, regardless of changed socal mores. (A doctor looking at Rembrandt's Bathsheba diagnosed that she had cancer of the left breast. The diagnosis was only possible because of the extreme accuracy of Rembrandt's depiction of the bumps, mottled skin texture, displaced nipple etc etc. He was a brutally accurate observer and recorder. The diagnosis passed all medical scrutiny and the painting was used in a world wide campaign against brest cancer.) My suggestion here is that, while not necessarily as physiologically precise as Rembrandt in their representations, many artists portay aspects of the psyche which are equally valid material for analysis by some discipline other than History. The most obvious example that springs to mind is the series of Mental Hospital portraits by Gericault.

Thirdly, I think that you should have left intact the previous writer's descriptionn of Leonardo as possily defining himself as a sodomist. What was required was a connection to the Sodomy page which would have explained exactly why this was a pertinent statement.

Lastly, most of your work on that article has been a major tweak. The information was already there and it was already well expressed, except for some sloppy writing like "(Leonardo) was likely a homosexual" instead of "probably a homosexual" or "it was likely that Leonardo was homosexual". There were things that needed tweaking. But some discretion is advised when overhauling someone else's writing, unless you can justify the process in the name of accuracy, either factual, or grammatical.

There are a lot of Art Historical articles that really need dealing with. The reason for this is that in order to provide content, someone went through and put in place large slabs of Britannica 1911. The writing of Art History was in many cases by a cousin of John Ruskin who was every bit as narrow in his thinking. (Can't remember his name straight offf) Anyway, he comes from the point of a critic and among the artists that he makes the most disparaging comments about is Fra Angelico whom he regards (briefly) as woosy. The style of such articles is archaic and unacceptable (in its general principle) to Wkipedia because of the very personal nature of the views expressed. However, inserting quotations from the writer is perfectly valid and applicable.

Can I suggest to you that you track down some of his writing and include, on the Art History page, a full discussion of this particular style of writing Art History. Another famous Art Historian whose work needs a critical overview in the article is Banister Fletcher whose enormous bible of architectural history largely ignored the Baroque because he regarded it as bastardised Renaissance. In this case it was not what he said that mattered but what he omitted. Can I suggest this to you as a project?

Concerning the Fra Angelico page in particular, I arranged the history clearly under headings, removed all the biased crap, put a few quotations in place instead, particularly from Vasari. They show that the artist in question was admired for his sentiment, which was what the other writer also said, but where the former actually expresses the sentiment about which he writes, the latter slams the sentiment and the artist as unworthy. I don't know if there is a page on this site that looks specifically at Art Criticism and the waxing and waning in the popularity of artists.

The Early Italian Renaissance is my subject in particular. I'll get around to doing a similar makeover for those other artists that have been similarly dealt with, Ghirlandaio, the Polly-wollies, Filippo Lippi and so on. There's heaps moreareas that really needd attention!

--Amandajm 23:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The writer for Britannica was William Michael Rossetti. Below is an absolutely classic quote-

"The "pietistic" quality of Fra Angelico's work is in fact its predominant characteristic. The faces of his figures have an air of rapt suavity, devotional fervency and beaming esoteric consciousness, which is intensely attractive to some minds and realizes beyond rivalry a particular ideal— that of ecclesiastical saintliness and detachment from secular worry and turmoil. It should not be denied that he did not always escape the pitfalls of such a method of treatment, the faces becoming sleek and prim, with a smirk of sexless religiosity which hardly eludes the artificial or even the hypocritical; because of this, there are some who are not moved by his work. Even so, Fra Angelico is a notable artist within his sphere,......."

So, how's that for a POV? --Amandajm 02:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Darth Malak page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

POV

Hi there, I reverted an edit you made to the millionaire article a couple of weeks back as being POV. It seemed rather blatant to me, but I wanted to let you know in case you disagreed and wanted to discuss it. Cheers, Lordjeff06 10:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Julie, Thank you for your message. In the future, I would ask that you leave messages on my talk page and not directly on my userpage. It just helps with the clutter! Regarding the millionaire article, I still think it's POV (and, actually, inaccurate), but since the edit was made in good faith and other editors are allowing it to remain, I'm willing to concede the issue. Lordjeff06 13:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Julie Martello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)