Hello! This WikiProject aligns closely with the work of the GLAM-Wiki initiative (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums), a global community of volunteers who assist cultural institutions with sharing resources with Wikimedia. GLAM-Wiki US is a new community initiative focused on organizing cultural collaborations within the United States. GLAM organizations are diverse and span numerous topics, from libraries and art museums to science centers and historic sites. We currently have a backlog of interested institutions- and we need your help!
Are you interested in helping with current or future GLAM projects? Join→ Online Volunteers
We hope you'll join the growing GLAM-Wiki community in the US. Thank you!
I've encountered some editors who have a connection to the Art Research Center and are claiming ownership of the article. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Basically, I've removed an unsourced list of names that have no articles and performed some general clean-up. I've been told I don't have "authorization" to do so and the Center founder has directed the reverting of my changes. I've explained Wikipedia policy on my talkpage here but it looks like my advice has been ignored and now a second IP has reverted all my changes. If others could weigh in and/or watchlist the article that would be helpful. freshacconci talktalk17:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Files up for deletion, speedy deletion, copyright dispute (May 2013)
These files have been nominated for deletion through various deletion processes, including being up for speedy deletion: (this list is not exhaustive, please check the various deletion processes for other files)
No, we don't normally do those. It looks a bit short for a GA to me, but I never know what GA standards are as it seems to vary with each reviewer. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Files up for deletion, speedy deletion, copyright dispute (June 2013)
These files have been nominated for deletion through various deletion processes, including being up for speedy deletion: (this list is not exhaustive, please check the various deletion processes for other files)
I came across the Art squat article, which claimed to be a 'movement' originating in Los Angeles. However, this claim was unproven and the linked articles described early art squats in Paris. I've therefore re-written the article in a more general tone, though I'm not 100% sure the term 'Art squat' is widely used. Opinions, contributions and edits much welcome! Sionk (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard of it, seemed dubious to me when I saw it earlier, maybe - related to alternative spaces? Hardly notable...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If "art squat" is a local LA term, perhaps a section in Artist-run space would be appropriate but unless there are sources that show wide use of the term, applying it to historic spaces is inappropriate and certainly shouldn't be its own article. I doubt the Parisian or German examples were referred to as "squats" which I think is a North American English term (I'm speaking of the actual term "squatting" as opposed to the act). freshacconci talktalk16:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The verb has long been used in British English, though originally American (used 1800 per OED). The noun for a building has been common in the UK since the '60s & might be British first; it is used in some Euro languages also -『Besetzte Häuser werden in einigen Ländern, zum Beispiel Frankreich, Großbritannien, Polen und Ungarn, als Squats bezeichnet.』from wp:de "Hausbesetzung" = squatting. The Hungarian article is called "Squat", as is the French, also the Slavic languages. Oddly the OED has from 1450: Squat (obselete) "A company of daubers" = painters? Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A mere mention in another article, such as Artist-run space, should suffice. There can be crossover in meaning between "artist-run space" and "art squat" but I don't think they are the same. The New York Times article does not mention the "squat" as a type of gallery, for instance one from which sales are made. Although likely sales would be made from "art squats". Concerning "artist-run spaces" the emphasis doesn't seem to be on living space but rather gallery space, although I haven't really read a lot of the sources supporting our "Artist-run space" article. And it is also likely that in some instances "artist-run spaces" also served housing purposes. Therefore we should be careful if mentioning "art squats" in the "artist-run space" article to not imply that the two concepts are necessarily the same. We might mention that "art squats" have provided inexpensive studio space for some artists under some limited circumstances. The New York Times article on "art squats" does mention briefly the term "studio space": "It reopened in September 2009, and today serves as studio space for 32 resident artists."Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'Art Squat' is a neat description of the phenomenon and is clearly used by a number of reputable sources, though not consistently. I've added Berlin's Tacheles to the article, based on the coverage of its closure by the BBC and a UK newspaper's blog. Der Spiegel uses the term artists' squat. Personally, I think the Art squat article should remain because it describes a particular manifestation of artists' space, distinct from the usual, legal organisations. Sionk (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Squats" are basically legal distinctions. This has little bearing on art. Art squats are appropriately mentioned in the article titled Squatting. I don't think sources for "art squats" distinguish such settings from other settings in which art is made, sold, exhibited, or in which artists live. Based on available sources I don't think an article is needed simply to note the illegal or unclear legal status that might apply to certain art settings. Bus stop (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I included a Picasso of Maar in the article. I was wondering if there are any sources linking the Lichtenstein to a particular Picasso/Maar portrait. I assume there are several Picasso/Maars in this style.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I edited the sentence about its origins. It's based on a postcard sent by the Picasso painting's owner. Here is a low-res version of the original (in comparison): http://www.artupdate.nl/lichtenstein-in-ludwig/. I couldn't easily track down its title or owner. At the very least, I'd replace the current secondary image with the one previously linked. There are also some good refs here if you want to dig deeper. I'll continue looking a bit more tonight. czar··16:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one, also reproduced in the book I mentioned below. The book dates from 2007, so it's probably still in the same collection. Paul B (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, it turns out that it's an exact copy of the 1939-40 Woman with a Flowered Hat (Lichtenstein's plagiarism is rarely less than total!) in the Morton G. Neumann collection. The images are discussed on p.254 of Fitzgerald's Picasso and American Art. I have the book with me now. Paul B (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you pull a quote out of the book? I can't get its excerpts online. I saw that the painting is Plate 76 in Picasso: The Recent Years, so I'm taking it out from the library. Hopefully it'll have some commentary too. czar··16:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm adding material now. Unfortunately some of the news reports have many of the details wrong. For example the reproduction he used was not a "postcard". You can actually see it on the wall here [1] in the notorious Life magazine article on Lichtenstein, written when he was at work on the painting. Paul B (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd stick with what Christie's says (as a RS) before relying on the Life mag image. While what you says looks to be right, it's possible that he enlarged that image from a postcard. (If your book says otherwise, my point is moot.) On that note, can you add the actual quotes to the citations (within the ref) when you have a chance? I'd like to read what the author says exactly. czar··23:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book says "a reproduction" was sent to him. I don't see how he could have enlarged a postcard. In 1963 that would be a complicated and rather expensive procedure. I also find it rather unlikely that a "postcard" would exist of a modernist painting in a private collection at that time. I don't know what you mean by "add the actual quotes to the citations within the ref". Paul B (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the use of the "quote" template, that's a matter of stylistic preference. If you like it, do it! However, you seem to be referring to actual text from the book that you believe is missing ("I'd like to read what the author says exactly"). I confess I am still mystified by this. What text is it that you want exactly? Speaking personally I dislike the complicated "cite book" codes for footnotes because they create a mass of coding when you open a page for editing, often making it horrendously difficult to read and edit easily. Re the "postcard": The Christies source is just a press release. The book is rather more authoritative, I think. In any case, a postcard is a reproduction, so there is no problem with the text as it is. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't add it if you don't want—I wanted the quote more for my own curiosity and thought it would be utilitarian to add it to the article. I'll have to take the book out of the library. (By the way, list-defined refs can help with that reading issue, or at least that's what I do.) On that previously mentioned Picasso book, it has a b/w reproduction and lists the piece as: Woman with Flowered Hat, Royan, October 11, 1939, May 5, 1940. Oil on Canvas, 28 x 23½". No real textual help, though. I'll hold onto it for a few more days in case anyone wants a reference. czar··06:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind adding a brief passage to the footnote from the book if there is something you think is specifically missing, or needs the exact words of the source. I just don't quite "get" what quote you are after. Paul B (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't complicated—I just wanted to read how the author phrased it in the book, which would easily fit under the appropriate citation parameter, but it isn't necessary to add. I've purchased the book. No worries. czar··02:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you keep saying you want to know something without saying what it is you want to know. You say "I just wanted to read how the author phrased it in the book". What is this "it", that you want me to provide the exact phrasing of? There are already two verbatim quotations from the book, not counting the transcribed interview with Lichtenstein. Paul B (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on this article--it looks great! I was recently introduced to Lictenstein, and Wikipedia coverage of his work has proven to be very helpful. I have created stubs for a few of his other works, including two nudes, the subway mural in NYC and Large Interior with Three Reflections. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer(Talk)17:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Content debate at Talk:Roy Lichtenstein: Legitimate artistic muse vs. self-promoting spam
I had started working on Drowning Girl to prepare it for the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition on September 28th. While cleaning it up, I learned that it had exhibited in April 1963 as well, making September it 2nd exhibtion. In order to prepare one of Lichtenstein's important works for a 50th anniversary celebration, I am now working on Whaam!, which is his most important work and believed to have been first exhibited on September 28, 1963. Please come comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In order to meet WP:NFCC#8 there needs to be sourced third party reliable sources discussing the files and there needs to be more than a paragraph to justify 4 non-free files. As the article currently stands there isnt justification for that many files. Just because it inspired the art work, you dont need to display it. Werieth (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCC#3 requires minimal usage, and WP:NFCC#8 requires Contextual significance. One paragraph One sentence The work was inspired by five different comic book panels made by Russ Heath and Irv Novick.[1] The plane, the pilot, the text balloon and the graphic onomatopoeia each comes from a panel from a different comic book. isnt enough justification for 4 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The images clearly add to reader understanding (which is the NFCC #8 requirement) so I have restored them. NFCC #8 (intentionally) doesn't speak of any text being required -- the question is whether the reader gains additional understanding, that they would not have without seeing the image. In the context of a Lichtenstein work adapting and re-contextualising original source material, that is plainly the case. The reader plainly gets a better understanding by seeing what the original source images were, and how they were adapted. Jheald (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be argued but at the present, there are no (apparent) sources that avoid the original research of identifying where those source images come from. (It's apparently clear, but that would fall under WP:TRIVIA and trainspotting if sources haven't identified that.) That said, I don't think you need all four. One would be sufficient to show how an element was borrowed from the source comic (likely, the one of the pilots face since that is clearly copied), you don't need all four once you've made the point he used elements from comics. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mention the specific sources in the prose so it was hard to determine which source attributes where the images were taken from. That said (assuming sourcing is not the issue), yes, it is reasonable to expect our average reader to understand that if you show one example of borrowed usage that explaining there were three more is intuitive. In other words, you can show that with 2 images (the actual work of art, and one comic example), not 5, as required by NFCC#3a. This is particularly true as two of them - the text balloon and the omanomapedia text - are generic items from comics and certainly don't need visual reference. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The understanding being conveyed here is not that in general terms that Lichtenstein "borrowed" from other works. That point at a general level is the kind of thing the main article on Lichtenstein would cover. But this article is an article on the specifics of this picture. People coming to this article are likely to already know in general terms that Lichtenstein reused/repurposed existing art. What's relevant in the context of this article are the specifics: what, for this specific work, were the specific sources; and how in this specific instance they compare to the Lichtenstein work. That, for NFCC #8 in the context of this article, is the addition to reader understanding which is absolutely on-point for this work; and, no, only showing the reader half the source material does not convey the same information. Jheald (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how you call it, at least of the non-free examples do not need to be seen: the text which is visually different (since you can just type that in as ASCII to show that), and the onomatopoeia as that doesn't appear at all in the original panel. The pilot image is the one that has the strongest reason for an example since that's not based on a real object, and the reuse in the work is abundantly obvious, thus providing a strong visual connection between the two. Hence the best example; the others are "oh, yeah", but do not have anywhere near the same visual impact that requires the NFCC exemption to use. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just rearranged for two sources. Although I concede that the text bubble source is fairly trivial, the onomatopoeia seems to be integral to part of the understanding of the work. It is a substantial portion of the image and was clearly derived from a comic source. Throughout WP, we show Lichtenstein's non-trivial sources. I consider the graphic non-trivial because it is artwork. E.g., if you were to crop the image down to just this, it would still be significant artwork (like say Varoom!, which I sadly do not know the source of). Since it would be a substantial artwork by itself, its source should be presented to the reader if we can identify it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's clear value in being able to see the context in which the text bubble originally appeared in the source material, so see how this phrase (which in the context of the Lichtenstein work may acquire an additional sly resonance to the "Pouring" art movement) originally occurred. Jheald (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, we're not an art deconstruction source, we are a tertiary summary encyclopedia, and there's a level of detail that is inappropriate that is also tied with how much NFCC we can include. I completely appreciate showing one example of the original source material in contrast to the final work and the description of where the other elements were pulled from within the bounds of NFCC, and while all four would be nice, that far outweighs the NFCC policy. One demonstration is sufficient along with the sources that if the reader wants to see more, they can, but they do not need to see all four examples to appreciate the work; the same comprehension is there with just 2 non-frees (the main work and one example) along with the associated text. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to ask youself what is the purpose of the images here. It is not to demonstrate that Lichtenstein re-interpreted the work of other artists. Someone coming to this article would almost certainly know that already, for example from our general article on Lichtenstein. Rather, the point of the images here is to show the specific sources Lichtenstein used for this image, and how he re-worked them. As I wrote above, that is the information that is added to reader understanding, and only showing the reader half the source material does not convey the same information (the key test for NFCC #3).
I also utterly reject what we might call Masem's Mantra of Mediocrity (tm). An article here ought to be as good and thorough and complete and free-standing as we can make it. And that is perfectly consistent with being a tertiary source. Sure, part of being good and thorough and comprehensive is that one has to be selective. Our readers' reading patience is finite, the article needs to put over what is most important (or, at least, put over what is most important first). WP:UNDUE applies, and an article must keep balance. But with a work by Lichtenstein, presenting the source material is part of that key information, because so much of Lichtenstein's work famously being so closely derived from source material, seeing what the source material in this case was is directly relevant to the reader's understanding of Lichtenstein's creative contribution. Jheald (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this. In many WP:FACs I have been up against a 4 NFCC item limit. This has made me think in the past. Here we have the work and four or five (depending on how you count the double panel) sources. I am just saying that I would be most willing to give up the text balloon, if we have to give one up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no set amount of NFC that an article is allowed to use. The ideal number is zero but of course we recognize that some article do require NFC to properly help illustrate an article to help the reader understand the target in a non-free manner. Being an article about a work of art, certainly 1 is appropriate - the work of discussion. But it's not useful to say "this article could use 4, I should be able to use 4", because that limit does not exist at all. There's a reason NFC doesn't mention any numbers because otherwise that is gamed heavily.
As to Jheald's point, you don't need to illustrate every source that the art came from to explain that there are original sources where Lichtenstein used for the work. You can list them out in text and that satisfies that point. I am sympathetic to the point that for two of those examples (the plane and the pilot) that there is a clear visual similarity that is apparent from just inspection, and thus understanding how Lichtenstein incorporated that into the work. So there is a reasonably expectation for some additional NFC media outside the work itself to show this. But you don't need all four to show this. You don't need for certain on the text phrase nor the onomatopoeia since these elements are not visually copied from the source material, thus neglecting any need to show them. (This does not mean the text can't list what comic/issues these are given in). And because our goal is to minimize the amount of non-free used, and you're already not showing all 4 works, you can reduce it down to one, the pilot - the one with the most apparent and obvious visual exactness in the final work. That gives the reader a good understanding of how Litchenstein recreated the comic art in his pop art, and helping the comprehension, but the benefit of this help after the first example significantly wanes. I'm sorry if you feel that's mediocere, but the Foundation has us on a mission to produce free content and minimize non-free , and this is an exact case where the approach to minimize is perfectly clear while still allowing for reasonable uses. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point about the onomatopoeia being a less important source because the similarity is less strong. I had previously proposed two sources. I do not WP:OWN the article and welcome feedback from all interested parties until an agreement can be reached or brute force is necessary. I am willing to settle for 2, but await other feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case it's not clear, I do believe this article can support 2 non-frees - the main art piece itself, and the pilot reference shot - to meet all NFCC. Any more is excessive in light of what the images are being used for. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the article can meet our criteria using all five of the images as TonyTheTiger and JHeald have argued above and as the article currently stands. HidingT22:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Files up for deletion, speedy deletion, copyright dispute (July 2013)
These files have been nominated for deletion through various deletion processes, including being up for speedy deletion: (this list is not exhaustive, please check the various deletion processes for other files)
