Talk:Painting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic painting topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	Class: This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Additional information:
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
	This article is a vital article.
	This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have.

[edit] Older discussion

This isn't really to anyone in doran is the best noone is better particular, but...if you have an answer for me, please let me know...Ok, here comes the question:

what is the difference between classic/traditional paintings and modern/abstract paintings? So far, all i have discovered is that classic is a depiction (using paintbrush, paints, and a canvas) of what someone sees in their head that can mean something only to the painter, or nothing at all, really, whereas modern paintings have much to do with representation and sybolism. They tend to generate feelings through color and shapes. Is there anything else one might like to add? I'm not saying that this is correct, seeing as I got most of this from Google (faithful Google... :P)...I'd appreciate any comments on the matter. --Charis

Changed link from media to singular medium page. --Daniel C. Boyer

Umm... How's coloured pencil a painting medium. Paints are usually wet. Unless you drop it in water, a coloured pencil isn't. - user:zanimum

Hello... can anyone look at this article to put in their two cents?

As I've nagged before coloured pencil a painting medium. Paints are usually wet. Unless you drop it in water, a coloured pencil isn't.

So...?

I help run a public exhibit space in Brampton, Ontario called Artway, and we have a drawing in colour exhibit, as well as a painting exhibit. If anyone told us coloured pencil was a painting medium and tried to exhibit their art in the wrong show, we'd look at them weirdly, because by no means is it a painting medium. The result do look like acrylics or pastels, but they certainly aren't true paintings. - user:zanimum

I agree with you completely, and will take it out. You could have taken it out yourself, though - be bold in updating pages! --Camembert

Searching for Still life (is that the correct word??) what I'm missing here is a classification on subject, eg. Landscape, portrait, ... Regards Ellywa

Defining the term "medium" as the vehicle by which pigment is delivered to a surface should easily qualify the colored pencils as a painting medium. Pencils put pigment on canvas. Wetness or dryness are irrelevant; one often talks about pastel paintings, pastels can be both wet or dry, and can come in sticks, powders, and pencils. Crayons, too, can be considered a painting medium, as they are a kind of wax based pastel. Shoehorn

My two cents: Leaf through any issue of The Artist's Magazine and you will notice that both graphite and pencil crayon works are consistantly referred to with the word "painting". Practitioners in this area commonly use this terminology. I think the difference between a drawing and a painting both done in pencil is that the painting is more refined, a work of art, whereas the drawing may be unfinished or simply a means to informally record some scene. Reigh

coloured pencil works are referred to as 'paintings' when the colour saturates the page/canvas. the same applies to pastels. if the pencil is used to sketch or shade with, it is called a drawing. however, when applied thickly, in layers, or in a way that fully covers the paper, it becomes known as a coloured pencil 'painting'. Toeknuckles

I am not sure I understand what a common painting element is. Could someone explain why the list is titled that, instead of genre as I had it originally? I would have thought that painting elements would include such things as: focal point, linear perspective, emphasis, highlight, amount of detail, importance and placement of figures, point of view..., details about a specific painting, rather then groupings of painting types. Reigh

I changed it to "elements" because I did not feel genre was a good description of the list. One usually talks about genre in terms of art genres: painting is a genre of art, as is sculpture. But now that I think about it, I think "idiom" might be the best label, the portrait is a common painting idiom, as are landscapes, &c. Shoehorn

Fingerpainting is more of a style or method of application rather then a medium, isn't it? Reigh

Yes, but according to the fingerpaint article, "fingerpaint is a kind of paint..." so it makes sense to list "fingerpaint" (though not "fingerpainting") as a medium (that's assuming that article is correct, of course). --Camembert

Why don't we list any painting styles from before the mid-1800's? Rmhermen 00:41, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following section, which might be located if usefull in another article:

Paint-

  1. A liquid mixture, usually of a solid pigment in a liquid vehicle, used as a decorative or protective coating.
  2. The thin dry film formed by such a mixture when applied to a surface.
  3. The solid pigment before it is mixed with a vehicle.
  4. A cosmetic, such as rouge, that is used to give color to the face; makeup.

I included this because I felt it served to confuse the point of the article further. Painting is generally looked upon by the art community at large today, due perhaps to the variety of media available, as the manipulation of color. Categorization largely depends upon the artist's past works (were they a painter, sculptor etc.?), the nature of the finished work (is it linear, textural etc.?), and lastly the manner in which the medium was handled when applied (did they use watercolor pencils, soak the canvas in turpentine before working with oil sticks or pastels?). Keep in mind encaustics are a wax with a complicated application process. Not what I'd call liquid by any straight and simple definition. --Vinegartom 12:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Art Sweeps America

Prominent dark art artists have begun to emerge in paintings of the 21st century. One growing and masterful dark artist is Stephen Cheung, a student who has mastered the ways of Picasso and have drawn for many friends as well as competitions. His unique style of demonic art reflects the politcal turmoils of the 21st century. His inspirations have come from friends such as Jade and Christie.

If I had to speculate, I would guess that this 'dark art' section was posted by none other than Stephen Cheung himself.

I agree. This feel forced.

I never liked modern art...not that I've ever even heard of demonic art....Charis

[edit] Intro sequence and correct English terms

I'm unclear over the correctness of the intro sentence, Painting is the practice of applying pigment suspended in a carrier (or medium) and a binding agent (a glue) to a surface (support) such as paper, canvas or a wall., as I'm unclear about the correct English terms to use. Also note, that medium points a disambig, which hasn't any matching entry.

Q: Is there really distinction between (a) carrier or medium and (b) binding agent? In German, it's rather clear that a paint consists of Pigment, and Bindemittel (and optionally Füllstoff, = filler (?)). I'm looking for the term matching "Bindemittel" and I'd assume "binder" or "medium" (translated literally, it is "binder medium"). See also [1].

Pjacobi 21:55, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

From http://www.marilynfenn.com/glossary_materials.html

"Binder: The material used in paint that causes pigment particles to adhere to one another and to the support; for example, linseed oil or acrylic polymer."

"Medium (pl. media or mediums): In paint, the fluid in which pigment is suspended, allowing it to spread and adhere to the surface."

I don't know how to clarify this in the article. I suppose it wouldn't have to be in the intro, but could be expanded in a more comprehensive section about paint

However, the Wikipedia article paint says "There are generally three parts to a paint: binder, diluent and additives. However, only one of these components, the binder, is absolutely required. The binder is that part of the vehicle which eventually solidifies to form the dried paint film. The diluent serves to adjust the viscosity of the paint. It is volatile and does not become part of the paint film. Anything else is an additive."

--Sketchee 22:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Artists that hand-make their own paint usually only do so with the pigment and the binder. Any other additive should be noted as such. The only two absolutely necessary ingredients to paint are pigment and binder. It may not be a "great" paint, but it will be paint. Mediums are used to change the intial properties of a paint but are not essential to what paint is. Mrs Scarborough 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

From http://www.webster.com - a mixture of a pigment and a suitable liquid to form a closely adherent coating when spread on a surface in a thin coat. Suitable liquid can be replaced with vehicle. Perhaps the into sentence can be changed to simply, Painting is the practice of applying pigment suspended in a vehicle to a surface (support) such as paper, canvas or a wall. Ahering or using "glue" to make sure the paint sticks is not a requirement for painting, but generally desireable for sure. I am hesitant to make this change myself as I'm new, still learning and this article is rather large. Mrs Scarborough 19:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest - be bold! Make your edits (with references preferably) in the article... Tyrenius 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits made. From Sketchee's notes above and definition from http://www.webster.com, also noted above.

Paint is pigment suspended in a liquid vehicle. Binder is a word often used when describing the liquid vehicle because adhesion to the support is a hopeful outcome of the act of painting. However, a binder may be as weak as water or as strong as a 400 year-old linseed-walnut-copal film, or saliva as in cave painting. Medium, as defined in the previous edit, is not a requirement for paint which is essentially pigment + liquid vehicle. --Mrs Scarborough 22:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well...I think that the first phrase of the first paragraph is getting confusing as it tries to get too precise. It is also quite limitative. As an example, pigment and gum arabic (the binder) is recognized as watercolor, but you do need water to apply it. Gum arabic by itself is a powder (or crystal). What is left after water (the liquid vehicle) evaporates is...? So you need the liquid vehicle to apply the "paint". But this is not exact either: pastel is pigment with a binder (gum arabic) to which no water is added. You might argue that using pastel is not painting but drawing but that would open another debate (What is artistic painting?). I also know painters who apply pure pigment to a surface (in powder form) and "fix" it with glue, wax, hair spray and other fixatives (are they binders?). You also can't specify that pigment has to be applied, as painters have used Coke, root beer, blod, tea, dyes, ink and many many more COLOURS (black and white are colours). So painting can be more realistically defined as "applying colour to a surface". The last phrase of that first paragraph opens up nicely to Art and is very appropriate. This also ties in better to the third paragraph (about colour). Rawbear 02:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And this is why I wish I had better English teachers...Charis

[edit] Assistance needed

The Brooklyn Bridge image in Bridges in art needs painter attribution and dating. This is at a museum in Rochester, NY (no flash images from the permanent collection are permitted.) Thanks, Leonard G. 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

Graphics is currently nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you want to contribute.--Fenice 20:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence (Where is it?)

Evidence indicates that humans have been painting for about 6 times as long as they have been using written language.

Source, please? --Dforest 09:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You might find it in cave painting or the "32,000 years" figure cited in the next paragraph. Tverbeek 17:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article could be better

The history of painting seems lacking. There is no mention of the relationships between painting and technology, and modern & contemporary painting is virtually non-existant. If anyone wants to strengthen these sections, I'm sure it would be appreciated. I'll try to add a little, but I may not have the time :P Vanessa kelly 18:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I agree wholeheartedly! I keep looking for information on the difference between classic paintings and modern art/paintings....but so far i got nothin...

Charis

SOFIXIT ! Tyrenius 00:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uh...

Not to offend anyone, but if you cannot artfully wield the English language, please don't attempt edits. Oh yeah, and I deleted the paragraph about drawing that committed about 10 blunders; it just didn't make any sense. Matthew 00:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

Above these theories we can say that painting as well as all other forms of art are strongly connected with religious or spiritual consciousness, and they seem to remind us of our spiritual essence and existence and the fact that prehistoric men have done it seems like unequivocal proof of it.

...assuming that we have a "spiritual essence" that indeed does exist. This sentence contains direct implications that the existence of paintings and art in general 'proves' that we have a spiritual nature. I feel that it therefore represents a biased view due to the author's a priori metaphysical beliefs, independent of the subject matter. I am removing this sentence (Please take note that I feel that the sentence itself is beautifully written, though biased). Sdr 21:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely POV and unreferenced. If a source can be found, then it can be quoted from that source, but doubtless counter-views will need also to be quoted to maintain balance. Tyrenius 17:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defining "Painting" as the act of using "Paint"

If we are letting the definition of paint stand at "pigment suspended in a liquid vehicle (such as water, oil, saliva, arabic gum or other liquid)" Computer Painting should not be in the Painting techniques list. I have removed it. --Mrs Scarborough 02:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Intro Passages

Made some significant changes to the intro passage. I am still new at this so I apologize for any failure to cite or reference sources if needed. Please note here of any weak points or passages that REALLY need citation and I'll do my best to cite/change/work with the wiki community. I'm still learning how to do all of this gracefully. Thanks. --Mrs Scarborough 04:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Crap. Made a few more changes and now the last intro paragraph feels really awkward. Not sure if its all working or making sense. Help? --Mrs Scarborough 04:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not too bad. I've had a go. Just keep on doing it, and it'll get there! Contact me if you need help. Tyrenius 05:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay! I'm planning on going through the entire article bit by bit so a "not too bad" is encouraging. I don't know how much of the history I will touch but I'm looking at the sections after that and rethinking the order in which they are listed. Thanks for the encouragement. --Mrs Scarborough 17:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cutting down India Section

The India section is very lengthy and detailed as compared to the other painting period sections which come across as summaries. More indepth articles exist for History of painting and for each of the painting periods/schools listed under India: Bengal school of art, Tanjore painting, Mughal painting, Rajput painting, Madhubani painting. So the India section seems out of balance with the rest of the article and needs to be summarized and cut down. Ideally I'd like someone more familair with Indian painting to make the edit, but if after several days with no one attempting it (and no objection) I will attempt to do it myself. --Mrs Scarborough 17:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't wait. Be BOLD. Changes can always be reverted. You might like to add some of the information to Indian painting. Just revamp the whole article and see what happens. If this draws in comment or other editors, then that will be a good thing to have more input. Tyrenius 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The material in this section is duplicated in Indian painting, so don't worry about anything being lost. Tyrenius 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Indian section was unbearbly large so I added a paragraph under India which summarises traditional Indian art to a certain extent. Please make sure it reaches a certain quality and then delete the rest of the section. AdityaRachakonda 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh no! Please, do forget this proposal to merge

unless the various aspects of "painting" are defined. RPD 22:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What proposal to merge? I can't see one! Tyrenius 00:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On my screen, there's a merge-tag on top of the "Painting" article. --RPD 16:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to the merge suggestion. One article is about materials and one is about the art of painting. They are each sufficiently important to need their own article. Tyrenius 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. It's been there since 3 April [2] with no interest. Tyrenius 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay for a sgtart I'm gping to clear this whole mess up. I am a ~~proffessional~~ diplomat, so an used to solving arguments. Propelsels have nothing to do with paintings, I know. I have a boat. Also paintg is not a art, it is THE ART, especially when using google image search. An tags are only on clothes, so I dunno what thats about. Anyway, paints gloray on me blog. - JIffo ps- this is my first wikipedia so don't chop my blog odff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.63.142 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] ADDING TEXT TO MAIN ARTICLE

I used "Edit this page" to add some text. Now, I'm very new to this and didn't expect it to be added, except in the "Edit this page" archive. The problem is, I used italics and bold by clicking on the edit bar, and yet this only shows in the main text as typo mistakes. Can anyone help with this?--Skerovic Slobodan 02:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Issue

There is something wrong with the photo of the page from the Hastings Book of Hours. When you click on the image, it loads correctly, but the tab labeled 'image' doesn't seem to work. When you click on it, a page pops up insisting that this image does not exist. Can someone who knows what is wrong please fix it? Thanks, Vlmastra 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Painting in the 1970s

As anyone who knows anything at all about painting during the last thirty or forty years in the United States, it has an unbroken and vital history. There is no truth to any claim to the opposite, in spite of claims of its demise in the 1970s by those detractors who were pushing their own views. Modernist 23:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Modernist. I am a student of painting. I am in no way trying to devalue painting. I am trying to record the historical fact of the debate that surrounded it for the decade of the 70's. It is important to history to try and be factual, regardless of whether one agrees. Critical discourse moved away from painting (not that painting stopped or paintings made were unimportant). That is the case of the stop-gap between high modernist painting and the rise of contemporary painting. To be fair one must record the history of its difficulties, not just its triumphs. I tried to illustrate that in my last modification. Lets discuss it here before I change it again, as I do not want an editing war. I am the one who wrote the entire section for the history of contemporary painting, both what you are eliminating and keeping Thamiel 00:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thamiel, I am a painter who has had nearly 70 one-man exhibitions including two dozen in New York City at major galleries. I know most of the people I've listed. I teach and lecture on recent art history as well. As a teacher, I've had thousands of art students. With all due respect to you please understand that your assesments are simply not completely true. Painting was popular, then became unpopular, questioned by Judd and others in the 1960s yes, but most of us kept painting - and making a living I might add, as the records shows. There were harsh criticisms by critics who had fish to fry so to speak. I knew many Conceptual artists in the 1960s who were obsessed with ArtForum articles, while the painters and sculptors I knew were painting paintings and making sculpture - and showing. When you refer to High Modernism you reflect the animosity that was hurled at Clement Greenberg by people who basically were establishing there own positions. Greenberg had his flaws (I knew him too) but nothing like the nonsense hurled at him by people who don't really know. Ironically he's still the best author on 20th century art in print, for all his flaws. I don't want an edit war, but in the USA during the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s there was far more going on (in the galleries and museums) in abstract painting then minimalism. I left in your edits about the entry of the Europeans during the 1980s. Keep in mind that this is an article about painting and not about Installation art or Conceptual art either. Modernist 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a painter, writer on arts, art historian and administrator (when I said student I meant that figuratively, not literally). You can't judge the history of art by your subjective interpretations. Whether you like Greenberg or not is irrelevant. There was a backlash against him, that resulted in a shift from painting. High modernism ended as an artistic vanguard, no arguements as it is an historical fact. I hate to be cannonical, but I am reflecting a narrative of art that has been accepted by scholarship. I like Greenberg as well (his hermetic approach to the construction of art is fascinating). There may have been people painting in the 70's, but without broad critical discourse. There are still people painting in impressionist and cubist idioms, but they aren't relevant to an article on the history and development of painting. I don't mind including your side, if you don't mind including mine (you tacitly agreed with everything I said in the above post anyway). I will back everything up with sourced footnotes. Hope you will do the same. Thamiel 01:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

many of the things you are citing are not true. In example, the list of art movements and artists contain many that were not even relevant or being practiced in the 70's. A heavily cited and footnoted entry that will not be changed will appear there soon. Thamiel 01:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Modernist asked me to have a look at this. The obvious thing is — please co-operate. This is a collaborative project. It's no good filling the talk page with opinions from personal experience and observation. It is called WP:NOR. It also violates WP:TPG, which need to be studied carefully. What is needed is the application of WP:V, which is noticably absent on this page, along with WP:NPOV. Find the sources, reference statements and show the different points of view from different published, verifiable authorities. Don't have an ongoing debate without doing so. It is fruitless. Additionally, good faith edits are never vandalism, and to continue to label them as such is vandalism. Also articles will always be changed: see WP:OWN. Tyrenius 08:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding External Links

Hi,

I needed your permission to add an important link to art portal - www.artandpainting.net

This portal is dedicated to art & painting. Editor is keep upgrading art portal daily basis.

Can you please permit to do so?

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voyage2mail (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for asking here , rather than linking to the site yourself. Unfortunately, the site you mention contains a high degree of advertising, and is therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:External links. — Feezo (Talk) 19:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. I have to agree with Feezo though. When I delve into the site I never get to any actual information, after I dig down through the categories I get to lists of books I can buy online. I don't think that's an appropriate site for Wikipedia. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded Far East Section

Over the past couple of days I have expanded the Far East section by about 95% (lol). I hope you like the improvements and the new pics.

--PericlesofAthens 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Marvelous! Is there info in that section that isn't in the Chinese painting article? --sparkit ^TALK 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move history section

I moved the history section to History of painting - intact. --sparkit ^TALK 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Faith Vandalism Welcome ?

All of my edits to the Painting article were made in good faith. At the top it says 'B-class article'. And something about lacking citations and notes ? And when I looked at the 'Talk page' I found there had been no discussion since last spring ? B-class article lacking citations and notes. I provided one referenced citation from a collection of Leonardo's texts on painting. Clearly relevant to the text, I would have thought. I was wrong, and can see that I should leave this to the better judgment of the owners of this encyclopedia. I also made a couple of changes to the images. I think the Daumier painting is of a too bad quality, and also an unnecessarily literal illustration. But perhaps the owners of this encyclopedia are the owners of that painting too. And I removed an unreferenced quote from the painter Julian Bell's book 'What is Painting ?'; wrongly attributed (in that same precious article) to the dead poet Julian Bell (1908-37) But who cares if it's a dead poet or a live painter ? Or about good faith ?
Sorry. ΑΩ (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The other editor obviously misread the edits. Just leave him a note saying it wasn't an experiment, but edits to improve the article. By the way, images should normally just be a default thumb, which allows editors' preference settings to bring up the image at their desired size up to 300 pixels, or else renders it at the default of 180 pixels. The lead image can be 300 pixels. Ty 09:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Struggles Of The Writing Painter Julian Bell

Well, the article still lacks citations, and footnotes. (The Leonardo quote I suggested has been removed.) The "Julian Bell link" has been repaired - it no longer refers to the dead poet Julian Bell (1908-37). But I'll say the quote from (the painter) Julian Bell also rather violates NPOV. I have not read Bells' book What is Painting ?. But I have found a review of it at artnet, and it would seem it is a fairly polemical work, very much expressive of Bell's own view and experience of painting, and (therefore also) of his own internal struggle. I read a short text that can be found at the Francis Kyle Gallery - which seems to stand in contradiction of the quote to be found in the Painting article:

I spend a good deal of time fulfilling particular ways to express in paint the distinctive feel of things (whether clouds, foliage, faces…). There is a kind of tension between variegated textures and my other, quite simple swipe of broad brush running across the whole surface. …My ambition is for each picture to be as self-sufficient as possible. But the diversity for me is a kind of release - a way of touching on the open-ended richness of the world and the ways we see it. ()

I'll repeat the quote in the article:

"Julian Bell (1908-37), a painter himself, examines in his book What is Painting? the historical development of the notion that paintings can express feelings and ideas: "Let us be brutal: expression is a joke. Your painting expresses – for you; but it does not communicate to me. You had something in mind, something you wanted to ‘bring out’; but looking at what you have done, I have no certainty that I know what it was."

Like I said, I have not read Bell's book What is Painting ?, but from this contradiction it may even seem difficult to say if these statements have been made by the same man. I'll assume though, that they are expressive of his internal struggles, as this would seem to accord well with the review I found at artnet, by the art historian and writer David Cohen:

Just when he starts getting polemical and personal, however, Bell shifts gear. His last chapter, far from a finale, is a cop out. Before, he was busy setting up his own imaginative categories to explain the tensions within painting; now he gets lost in a methodological maze. The book held such promise, which at lucid moments it began to deliver, of a bold and individual apology for painting, but after starting out with theory looking at painting it ends up with a painter reading theory. Sure, Bell is a very talented explicator (I've never read a more lucid and reader-generous account of structuralism and deconstruction) but that's not much compensation for the sorely needed book he didn't quite write. There are enough glimpses of good-humored polemic scattered through this book for us to know where his heart really lies, but the reader finds himself grasping at these rather like Cézanne, as Bell describes him, with his "clutch of surface tugs and analogies." There are enough glimpses of good-humored polemic scattered through this book for us to know where his heart really lies, but the reader finds himself grasping at these rather like Cézanne, as Bell describes him, with his "clutch of surface tugs and analogies.

So, it may, in this case in fact be true, in a sense, that "expression is a joke"...

Like I said, I have not read Julian Bell's book. But I find the contradiction between the statement at Francis Kyle Gallery and that quote in the Painting article to be rather puzzling, and... in fact, to be (most probably) highly expressive of Julian Bell's internal struggles as a painter, and writer. As for the quote in the Painting article, as it stands, I'll say it is rather misleading.

And the article still lacks citations with footnotes. ΑΩ (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add citations and footnotes. Julian Bell is a very minor part of the whole subject of painting, and there is no imperative to include any reference to him at all. NPOV applies to editors, not source material. A lot of arts articles need attention because there is a deficit of editors in that area. Ty 10:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I don't much care for the Julian Bell quote, which adds little to the article as it now stands. Ewulp (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.