User talk:Modernist/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Ellsworth Kelly 2 Thank you 3 Thankspam 4 RfA 5 Romanticism 6 RfA thanks 7 Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-) 8 Notability of Paul Brach 9 Reply 10 Template:Inuse 11 Image sizing 12 Claude Monet 13 Really, really bad haikus from a new admin 14 78.49.10.36 insisting on grey on Piet Mondrian 15 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style 16 Happy holidays 17 Sinclair Lewis 18 Holidays 19 Still-life with Geranium 1910? 20 Post-Impressionism 21 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3 22 American Abstract Artists 23 Vandalism and verifiability. 24 Rollback 25 Ab-Ex images 26 Fair use 27 Hudson River School 28 Post-Impressionism 29 My Rfa 30 Gorky and ab-ex

[edit] Ellsworth Kelly

We're were wondering how long it would take until an art snob to change the article. What a wonderful exercise for my Graffiti Art class...the digital documentation of my Neo-Graffiti will do wonders...especially with someone threatening to block my IP with the username 'Modernist'. We will come in waves...and we have all the articles that you helped create.

Happy editing :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.64.140 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

[edit] Thankspam

[edit] RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanticism

When you have a moment, can you take a look at Wetman's edits to the Romanticism article? I am not yet willing to revert him, because some of it seems correct. However, the following statement he added to the opening looks like an opinion:

The Romantic might as equally consider himself leading the vanguard of Modernity, as shunning Modernity altogether.

What are your thoughts? And, what about his alteration of all the century formatting from [[19th century]] to nineteenth century? He changed every instance throughout the article. I would like the opinion of someone with a lot of experience with this article, like yourself, before I revert any of his changes. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, and I agree with you. Thanks, as well, for the comment regarding the Surrealism article. Much appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~Eliz81^(C) 21:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-)

[edit] Notability of Paul Brach

A tag has been placed on Paul Brach requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, although I started the article like - 2 minutes ago. Paul Brach was the founding dean of Cal Arts one of the most famous and prestigious art programs in the United States. I will add references soon. Modernist (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Thanks for the kind words. freshacconcispeaktome 18:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Inuse

Check out the templates at Template:Inuse for use at the top of articles you're working on to avert speedies and edit conflicts. Tyrenius 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I could've used this the other day. I'll keep it handy. Modernist 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed! Tyrenius 03:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image sizing

Before you go reverting a bunch of my edits, have you bothered to read the Manual of Style regarding Image sizing? Wikipedia's guidelines for images state:

The following general guidelines should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise:

• Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not recommended: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers), and a maximum of 300px

Thanks, Cacophony (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? These are paintings that need to be seen. Lets discuss this with the other Visual Arts editors here - [1] at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Modernist 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claude Monet

Ta. The template, I presume you mean. Tyrenius (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the template and the links to the series paintings and to the article about Camille. Modernist (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The picture in the Template:Impressionists or lack of it is always open to review. A point against inclusion is that Monet's painting then appears on the pages of all the other artists. For the first time ever I altered my preferences for thumbs to come up at 300px. They looked very impressive. The trouble is that where there was a forced image size, say 250px. When default thumb renders images at 180px, the 250px images look big. When you set preferences at 300px, the 250px images still render at the forced size and then look small. I found this frustrating, and therefore another reason to stick to default thumb, unless a good reason to the contrary in specific cases. Tyrenius (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've experimented with 300px as my thumb preference and it is ok for thumbs but little else. I prefer the 180px preference if for no other reason than that most users are using 180px. If we design and write articles, I think we should keep most users in mind. Modernist (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I keep my settings on the default. Tyrenius (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Modernist, those are beautiful images on your user page. The images in my card are a bit of a mixed bag as you'll see and my haikus ... well let's just say they're not high poetry.

Anyway, thanks so much for supporting my RfA. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

MONDRIAN IN LONDON

For memories of Piet Mondrian in London from/by Charles Harrison, Winifred Nicholson, Barbara Hepworth, Miriam Gabo, Herbert Read, Ben Nicholson, Naum Gabo see http://www.snap-dragon.com/mondrian_in_london.htm

This is actually a hlepful link to scholars who wish to learn about Mondrian's time in London, of which little is known, althought "Modernist" believes otherwise. This info has been on this site for months, plus if we wish to be pedantic about links, etc. I will report all the images you have to DACS, ARS, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.218.157 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 78.49.10.36 insisting on grey on Piet Mondrian

I've removed your report of 78.49.10.36 for vandalism from WP:AIV as this doesn't appear to be vandalism, but instead is a content dispute. Can I suggest that rather than merely reverting 78.49.10.36's edits you engage in discussion on the article's talkpage and attempt to reach consensus? I am copying this to both Modernist's and 78.49.10.36's talkpages; the subsequent part is intended for 78.49.10.36. Please do not repeat the incivility you showed here and in other edits such as here. Civility is one of the key Wikipedia principles; please remember this. Comment on the content, not the editor. Apart from this, presumably you have reliable sources for your assertion that Mondrian used grey; I'm sure Modernist would be interested to see these. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps out of context, but Broadway Boogie-Woogie clearly contains grey. Perhaps 78.49.10.36 has a point? Tonywalton ^Talk 00:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(I posted the above before I saw your reply) - Certainly the issue of civility needs to be addressed, and any more responses like those will not be viewed kindly. Hopefully you and 78... can discuss this collegiately now! As an aside I was in Amersfoort for a week once on business, but I was too *&(&@(**^ busy to be able to visit the Mondrian museum. Damn! Tonywalton ^Talk 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple, then. Recast the opening paragraphs so that the statement isn't a dogmatic "he used x, y, z" to something like (and you'll be better at this than me, I'm sure) "in his earlier abstract work he used a restricted palette of primary colours such as x, y, z. Later, particularly after escaping to New York at the start of WWII he...". You get the drift. Perhaps you and 78 could work it out? Me? I know nothing about art but I know what I like ☺ Tonywalton ^Talk 00:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I se the "grey" edit has been reverted again (not by you) with a comment to see the talkpage. Perhaps the second paragraph Piet Mondrian#Paris 1919–1938 needs work as well, then (again, reading this out of context). One final thing before I stop bothering you; WP:WQA is a good place to take instances of incivility. Regards Tonywalton ^Talk 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll check it out. Modernist (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style

Comment would be useful here. Tyrenius (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I added my .02 cents. Modernist (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy holidays

Thank you for your kind words. Although my involvement has not been as deep or substantive as yours, I have enjoyed contributing. Maybe I will return soon--goodness knows that editing is a terribly obsessive pursuit, and it is near impossible to stay away--but I am tired of it right now. Best wishes and carry on with the good work, JNW (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindness too, but I know that weary feeling, take a break, rejoin us when you are ready. Stay well, Modernist (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Except for a couple of days around Christmas, I have not taken that break after all....someday. My compliments on all the fine work recently to articles of the impressionist and post-impressionist type, especially Monet, who had been very skimpy for far too long. Cheers, JNW (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good to take some time away, and it's hard to paint and continue writing sometimes. As I mentioned you are a very valuable editor. Thanks for your kind words. Modernist (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sinclair Lewis

The book is online - you might take the time to see that indeed the quote does not appear in the book. Tedickey (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read it. Modernist (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting link here:[2] Modernist (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, I saw that, but aside from the newsclip at the end, it was the same as the Snopes discussion. Tedickey (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Modernist, I was wondering why you added a link to Lewis' novel "It Can't Happen Here" to the See also section when it is already included in the bibliography? Jrs044 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm underscoring an important story to read. Modernist (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holidays

All the best to you too - keep up the good work! Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Thanks for kind comments on the Picasso template. Tyrenius (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still-life with Geranium 1910?

Hi, I left a comment regarding the year of the painting at Talk:Still-Life with Geranium. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Still Life with Geraniums seems to be the correct name. Article moved. Redirect deleted to avoid confusion with other similarly named paintings which also exist including by Matisse. Tyrenius (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work and thank you to both AxelBoldt (talk) and Tyrenius (talk Modernist (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ta. I never realised geraniums were so big in early 20th century art! Tyrenius (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Impressionism

Hi, would it not be wise to discuss alterations to important pages like Post-Impressionism with other editors, before altering such pages? At present, we have many pictures on this page, others and more could be easily supplied - but would this improve this page? There we have a lack of detailed information to classify something! While everybody seems to be invited to post his private opinion via an image which (almost by definition) is open to more than one interpretation. Therefore, please think about the definite content you supply, and keep in mind: WP is considered to be more than a coffeetable-book. Illustrations are fine, as long as they illuminate the content - but there is absolutely no reason to include them just because they are at hand. - rpd (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All the images I added are appropriate. The image that you eliminated - (was where the Pissarro now is when I found the article). I agree with that image being eliminated, that Russian artist seemed to practice a form of Impressionism and he was born after the Nabis. I also have serious doubts about the Henri Rousseau being in the lead or even in the article. Add text, - By the way I placed the Pissarro next to the text that I added that mentioned his foray into Post-Impressionism from the mid-1880s through the early 1890s and I see that you moved that text. Hmmm - for someone only editing since Dec 22, 2007, you certainly have a well developed sense of WP. Modernist (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I had problems to lock in, as I lost my password. So I created a new one, and hope to merge both user pages soon. For our PI-discussion I think it would be appropriate to continue on the PI-Talkpage. --rpd (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I will leave my remarks at the PI talk page for you. Yes, you didn't sound like a newbie. I hope you can merge with your older account. I've seen some other users around who have. Modernist (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius adviced me how to proceed, and so I did. I think you will find my advice on Post-Impressionism. --rpd (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Abstract Artists

New article FYI. Tyrenius (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and verifiability.

Re your 2008-01-14t20:43:09z edit with a summary "rvv" where you reverted my 2 previous edits. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for what vandalism on Wikiedia means. My two edits stated information from the reference [3]. After you reverted it it had him discussing painting with "Lee Krasner, Jackson Pollock", which is not mentioned in the source for that sentence. It also mentions the "New York School", which is not mentioned in the source for that sentence. It also mentions "The Club, a regular meeting place of modern artists working in and around Tenth Street in New York", which is not mentioned in the source for that sentence. Your revert wasn't of vandalism, it was of information that the sentence's source said. After your revert the sentence contradicted its source.

Your next edit used Wikipedia's New York School as a reference. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, you need to source information from reliable sources as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability - one of Wikipedia's 3 most important policies (the other 2 being Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). This edit also put back my mention of "the Eighth Street Club" which you'd just before called vandalism. Your summary had "see talk page before removing any more content!" - please read Wikipedia:Verifiability which states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The burden lies with editors adding information - unsourced and challenged information can be removed by anyone.

Your last edit left the following unsourced and previously challenged with a ^{[citation needed]} tag:

• Lee Krasner
• Jackson Pollock
• New York School (that article mentions Goldberg (unreferenced), but this needs to be referenced with a reliable inline source in the Goldberg article)

It also left the following unsourced and previously removed information:

• "a regular meeting place of modern artists working in and around Tenth Street" which was followed by the UKY reference which doesn't mention any of this - hence its deletion.
• Cedar Tavern piped as the Cedar Bar (which doesn't mention Goldberg, but should have been referenced with a reliable inline source int he Goldberg article anyway).

In summary: don't revert edits that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, don't then call them vandalism, and don't put back unsourced information once it's been removed unless you provide a source. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-15t10:07z

Good referencing. I've consolidated 2 refs that were the same[4].

If you want you can also use the citation templates at CAT:CITE which allows future display changes to automatically be used for all cites using the template.

Since several bits of info is referenced to the Herskovic and Sandler refs, you can create general references for them in the References section itself, and then do inline references with e.g. <ref>Sandler 1978, pp. 29-45</ref> and these can even be reused if the same pages reference something else by using the name="" parameter. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-16t11:55z

• I noticed your input - and thanks for you help there Jeandré, using those templates isn't my long suit... I appreciated your consolidating the Sandler references. Thanks Modernist (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Hello Modernist, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I'll use it as best that I can. Appreciated. Modernist (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Good luck. :) Acalamari 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ab-Ex images

Dear intrepid Modernist: Hi. It's nice to have an excuse to correspond with you again. I need your input. I recently posted on the ab-ex talk page my objections to the inclusion of three of the gallery images, not on grounds that the paintings are bad or unimportant, but on the grounds that they are not examples of abstract expressionism (though there may be other paintings by the same artists which are ab-ex). What do you think? I'm watching both this page and the ab-ex talk page, so I'll see your reply promptly wherever you may leave it. Thanks! MdArtLover (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think the Adolph Gottlieb is fine, it's an early example - a "pictograph," as he refered to them of his early Abstract expressionism that evolved into his "Bursts" which are better known. Admittedly the Gorky portrait of de Kooning is early and figurative, but it clearly relates to the work of John D. Graham (the mentor of Gorky, de Kooning and Pollock) and to de Koonings early figurative paintings that were influenced by Gorky and Graham. It presages the abstractions that were to come. I wish we had a later Gorky to work with as a replacement. The Louis Schanker poses a problem for me, it is too Cubist, too derivative, and a minor work by a minor artist. It probably should be deleted. I placed it chronologically, but I have reservations. If you - my old friend want to delete it I would offer no objection. Keep in mind though that both Pollock and de Kooning made important figurative work during the all important early 1950s. Modernist (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the fact that a work is figurative. An absence of figuration is only one of a set of traits which tend to predominate in abstract expressionism. De Kooning's paintings of women show the other tendencies of the movement so strongly - the savage application of paint, the emphasis on the physical quality of paint itself, the anti-orderliness, the "all-over" look of spontaneous painterly action, the large scale, the exuberant untidiness, the quality of the elemental that makes them almost seem works of nature, the mystical irrationality, the refusal to "compose" the picture or to help the viewer decide where to look, the absence of any sense of "drawing" that underlies the painted image, etc.- that it's easy to place them within abstract expressionism. In my opinion, none of these three really suits, but certainly the Schanker qualifies least as an example abstract expressionism. I really hate deleting things, so I'm going to have to think about this for a while longer before taking such a drastic step. MdArtLover (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I like your description of de Kooning, but Gorky never really relinquished his tender side, even in his most sophisticated and abstract works between 1944 and 1948. His color is always clear, his surfaces considered and subtle, even when they are dripped and loose, his use of composition, line and shapes - measured and enormously effective, set him apart from his rougher and as you describe more violent contemporaries like - de Kooning, Pollock and Kline. Gottlieb was on the other hand more like Rothko, Still, Newman, Reinhardt and Motherwell the more cerebral types, more about Color field painting then about action painting. The Gottlieb that is seen is a good example of his pictographs (rooted in mythology), and primitive painting, and like Rothko's more surrealist paintings of the late 1940s they are his early abstract expressionism. More about the Schanker I can't say. I'd say put the painting into his article, but it is already there. This morning I was talking with one of my students about how Franz Kline made small drawings before several of his most powerful and seemingly most spontaneous and violent looking paintings. Sometimes abstract expressionism isn't really abstract expressionism. :) Modernist (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rothko and Kline do not contradict what I'm saying. I'm saying that there must be a preponderance of the core traits of ab-ex in a work for it to qualify as an example. De Kooning's women, though they lack the absence of figuration predominant in ab-ex, still have a preponderance of the other traits. In the same way, Rothko's quieter canvases have a preponderance of the core traits of ab-ex, including: the emphasis on the physical quality of paint itself, the large scale, the quality of the elemental that makes them almost seem works of nature, the mystical irrationality, the refusal to "compose" the picture or to help the viewer decide where to look, the absence of any sense of "drawing" that underlies the painted image, etc. The fact that his paintings (usually) lack any obvious exuberance or violence or impetuosity and are instead brooding and depressive is not enough to disqualify them. Ditto Kline's works which in some cases may have been preceded by small-scale drawings: this is a difference in procedure that is notable, yet far from disqualifying, since the final work is visibly dominated by the core an-ex concerns and characteristics. The Schanker painting simply doesn't qualify. MdArtLover (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While we are in complete agreement that the Schanker does not qualify, (and I'd appreciate your deleting it), I suspect that we disagree about the assesment of Gottlieb and his early Pictographs. I see refined and quiet qualities in those pictures, that mine a vein of primitive imagery; elogy's to religiosity, tragedy and memory; new and radical for the time; also seen in Newman's work of the 1940s and Rothko of the 1940s. Eventually Gottlieb developed a full range of emotional expression and an articulated use of color in his Bursts. Modernist (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To my eyes, the Gottlieb does have a sort of "tachiste," tactile, primitive quality, a quasi-Gutai celebration of material fragility, that at least relates in some way to ab-ex. The Gorky, however, is an echo of Picasso that is not at all ab-ex, as I understand it. I totally hate deleting things, so I'm still just going to stew for a while. MdArtLover (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a great story about the surrealist artist/dealer Julien Levy seeing Gorky's work for the first time - some early paintings that appeared to him to be derivative of Miro and Picasso. He asked Gorky about that and Gorky replied: When I paint like Miro, I am Miro! and when I paint like Picasso, I am Picasso! To which, Levy replied: Well, when you paint like Gorky, call me. Modernist (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's so true it's almost not funny. That Gorky painting is certainly derivative, but of course, that's not my concern. A painting can be derivative, yet also be clearly an example of abstract expressionism. Conversely, a painting can be highly original, yet not at all an example of abstract expressionism. For example, David Hockney's sun-saturated paintings of Los Angeles socialites and swimming pools are both highly original and absolutely not abstract expressionist. MdArtLover (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I find the inclusion of the Gorky highly misleading as a visual presentation of Ab Ex, and its only relevance to the movement is within Gorky's work as showing the initial signs of his later development. Surely a mature Gorky fits the bill. This painting sits much better as a derivation of Picasso's classical period. There are other dubious inclusions, e.g. Alexander Calder whose article doesn't even mention Ab Ex. I suggest copying all this to Talk:Abstract expressionism and holding discussions there. Tyrenius (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, Modernist (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Just an info note. Take Image:Matisse518.jpg. Bottom of page shows 3 articles it's used in. Each article has to have a separate fair use rationale on the image page. Each FU rationale must link to the specific article. See Image:Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg for an example. Tyrenius (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi T, WP:FUR is getting complicated, but thank you for the heads up. If there are images that you come across that need work please let me know. Thanks - Modernist (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to check any images on pages you are editing. A common cause for possible deletion is just that the FU rationale doesn't have a link to the relevant article - even though there will be an automatic link at the bottom of the image page anyway. Tyrenius (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm slowly adding separate FU rationales to articles I've worked on in the past as well. Thanks again, - Modernist (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hudson River School

You shouldn't be reverting valid edits, especially without any explanation. So far you've done it twice. The passage has legitimate problems, which either have to be corrected for it to stay in some form, or if it cannot, left out entirely. 69.230.120.39 (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Impressionism

May you please have a look on the talk-page, before you continue? Thank you,--rpd (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, Modernist (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gorky and ab-ex

Heads up, Modernist. You'd better rewrite the Wikipedia article on Arshile Gorky. It appears to have been written by contributors who were not "real people". The article clearly situates Gorky as a crucial influence on abstract expressionism, and only in the mature works — not the quintessential, emblematic abstract expressionist tout simple that you and the Real People hold him to be:

"... The painterly spontaneity of mature works like "The Liver is the Cock's Comb," "The Betrothal II," and "One Year the Milkweed" immediately prefigured Abstract expressionism, and leaders in the New York School have acknowledged Gorky's considerable influence. But his oeuvre is a phenomenal achievement in its own right, synthesizing Surrealism and the sensuous color and painterliness of the School of Paris with his own highly personal formal vocabulary."

And the Gorky image used in the ab-ex article doesn't even show the relevant prefiguration. The image does not belong — just a non-cubist Picasso painting would not belong as the only image of a Picasso work in an article about cubism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylandArtLover (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, do you really think it's appropriate to delete part of a discussion which is already in the archive? --rpd (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes because he was a little overwraught when he wrote that. But let it be. Modernist (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)