Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I commented out this section of the project page, because I don't know, even after reading about it, when this template is appropriate. Anyone know?

{{Metapicstub | id=artstub | image=Art-stub.jpg | size=30 | alt=Mona Lisa | article=[[art]]-related article | category=Art}}

--sparkit (talk) 15:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've created a todo page. A similar todo list is at Portal talk:Arts/to do

--sparkit (talk) 16:23, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Can someone else take a look at the recent additions to Interactive art and Kinetic sculpture. I've reverted an anon a couple of times, for what looks like self promotion, but it could use input from a second editor. -- Solipsist 2 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)

Has anyone heard of Contemporary Baroque Art? It is an article that was translated over from the Italian wiki, but it seems likely to be another one-man art movement. The man being Gian Andrea Scarello whose article is currently on VfD. His paintings on the linked web site, whilst expensive, seem nothing special and quite targetted at tourists to Venice. -- Solipsist 20:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't keep up with trends enough to advise, but it does seem like a Self-declared art movement. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 01:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

After reading Philthecow's comments on Category talk:Paintings I was about to invite her to this project, but seeing that she's here already, I'd like to say that I'd be very interested in collaborating on the kind of template you're suggesting. I've come across the same problem as you and the shape my articles on the subject eventually depends more often than not on what kind of book I'm using. A manual of style as comprehensive as the one on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums would be ideal for making those individual painting/sculpture pages more consistent. Count me in! – Ham 11:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If it is any help, there is the Template:Painting, which perhaps is intended to improve consistency on displying paintings. However, I guess it is more the body text that is the real issue. -- Solipsist 12:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have a related issue that I would like people to comment on over at Portal_talk:Art#Formatting_visual_arts_articles_with_details_on_individual_works. I'd appreciate any and all input. --bodnotbod 19:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A related topic, Graphics is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for this article or comment on the nomination!--Fenice 19:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

With the introduction of the "Portal" namespace, the art portal has moved to "Portal:Art" as have all the child pages. So, if the portal or its child pages are in your watchlist, they're now pointed at redirect pages, and you won't receive notice of changes to those pages. To receive notice "watch" the Portal:Art pages. >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

articles on visual artists which you think need work list here:

• John Constable
• Claude Monet
• Henri Matisse
• Paul Signac
• Mark Rothko
• Joan Miró
• Pierre Bonnard

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on the visual arts? Featured articles are good as well. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 19:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm part of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics working toward a release version of Wikipedia (on paper or CD).

If you're interested in helping, these are some related articles we plan to include:

• Art
• Drawing
• Sculpture
• Painting

If you think any of these are ready, please let us know. You can see our proposed initial quality standards or learn more about the overall project.

Thanks. Maurreen 04:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The article on Edward S. Curtis was illustrated until a few days ago with a number of his photographs and other images that have now been stripped from the article and will soon be deleted from Wikipedia altogether, all because the user who uploaded them was cavalier about copyright and giving sources. The original article is at [1]. I have restored one image that I am confident was published before 1923, and is thus Public Domain. I believe many of the images removed were published before 1923, but I have no source to verify this. Can anyone help on this? It would be a shame to lose all of these images. TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 14:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If possible, could someone have a look at this article on a modern sculptor? I've expressed concern about the tone of the entry on the talk page, but so far have only had annoyed anons who want the tag removed respond. Thanks in advance. Harro5 03:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Arts
Announcing the creation of WikiProject Arts, an effort to create a collaboration between all arts projects and artistically-minded Wikipedians in order to improve arts coverage. If you think you can help, please join us!

HAM 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not part of this WikiProject, but people here might be interested in my new article on the Bode Museum in Berlin. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Angr! Good work with the Bodemuseum; I'm glad the Museum Island museums are finally branching out onto their own pages. I'm afraid this project isn't showing much signs of life at the moment, but perhaps you might be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts? HAM 17:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. I translated the article because I'm trying to improve coverage of Berlin, not because I'm especially interested in art! Angr (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've started some articles on contemporary UK art critics: David Lee, Adrian Searle, Louisa Buck, Waldemar Januszczak, Matthew Collings. Critics needing an article include: Richard Cork Julian Stallabrass and Tim Marlow. Existing articles include Brian Sewell, Jonathan Jones, Andrew Graham-Dixon, John Russell Taylor and Edward Lucie-Smith. I think the categories need to be clarified. At the moment we have British art critics and then English Art Critics with just one name. I think there needs to be a separate category for Contemporary British art critics, and another for Historical British art critics, and delete English art critics altogether. I'm not very knowledgeable about the intricacies of categories, so am requesting feedback and assistance on this. Tyrenius 18:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with doing away with Category:English art critics, but I would discourage further division into historical and contemporary critics – it's not being done at Category:British artists or at Category:British art historians. I see you've written a fair deal about Louisa Buck – do you know much about The Art Newspaper, which, shamefully, is just a substub at the moment? Cheers, HAM 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put up a little bit more info, mainly culled from their website. Do you think there should be articles on journals like Art Review, Modern Painters etc?Tyrenius 09:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have the time and inclination, feel free to do so! Modern Painters is linked to on 6 pages, which I suppose makes it heavily linked to by art journal standards, although a few of those are referring to Ruskin's book of the same name. I've typed up a few paragraphs on Richard Cork, mainly cribbed from press releases etc., but couldn't find his date of birth. HAM

At the moment, I don't, but they could be put on a "to do" list. I added a paragraph to Cork. I presume this is all the same "Richard Cork" and there aren't two people by the same name? He seems awfully busy! Tyrenius 16:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from my other articles on art critics, e.g. Adrian Searle, I have created a "Judgements" section, on the basis that for a critic, this is the equivalent of showing an artwork in an article about an artist. If people agree we could make this a working guide. Tyrenius 16:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from the Arts Project (and in my case the Opera Project).

Some of you may be aware of the discussions going on about Art/Arts/Fine Arts/Applied Arts/Visual Arts at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 4 and on the Arts Project Talk Page.

We are also discussing categorization on Portal talk:Arts/Categories with regard to the scheme on Portal:Arts/Categories. Perhaps a representative from this project would like to join us?

Kleinzach 17:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey - I'd be interested in helping out where I can. Looking at the 3 categories above, I'm not sure they're full enough to perpetuate. Category:Western art is woefully incomplete, for example. I think if these broad topics need some coverage, there would/should be an article of the same topic.(& I'll leave this comment over in visual arts) Clubmarx | Talk 21:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to draw your attention to the above which is directly relevant to the project. Tyrenius 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between these two categories? It seems like Category:Art_media is the better label, but the contents of Category:Art materials is better & more appropriate. Should these be merged? Are there other categories like this?

On a related note, I'm starting Media (arts) which is listed on the Media disambiguation page. Right now, Art techniques and materials is functioning like a art media article, although I'm not sure why techniques would be included with materials/media. Clubmarx | Talk 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

New here. Hi. Upon looking at the two categories I think I see the problem. Category:Art_media seems to refer to an art medium (as in when a medium is listed on a label in a gallery such as "oil on canvas" or "pastel on board"). The question "What medium do you work in?" will spawn answers such as that listed in this category: Digital Art, Found art or Mixed media.

Category:Art materials seems to refer to the tools used to make art such as a palette, or paintbrush. You would not say you worked in the palette medium.

Not sure what a good solution would be. Perhaps Art_media=Art Disciplines and Art Materials=Art Materials? Further down I saw Renice's response. :--Mrs Scarborough 18:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki has beaten the morning papers to the shortlist. There are now stubs on all 4 nominees, as below. However, with the considerable interest in the prize, they would benefit from expansion. Please help with this if you can.

• Tomma Abts
• Phil Collins
• Mark Titchner
• Rebecca Warren

Tyrenius 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a point of discussion on Articles_for_deletion/List_of_video_artists. Tyrenius 17:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is now a special page for visual art items sent to Articles for deletion. It can be found here: WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts Could someone please advise where is the best place to put this on the project pages? Tyrenius 10:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks for making that page. One place might be Portal:Visual_arts/Things_you_can_do. Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts is the main page, although the organization of that looks old.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clubmarx (talk • contribs) .

I had a look and think it will get lost there, so I put it on the project page, as I think it's quite important. Various issues come up in the AfD. Any better suggestions welcome. Tyrenius 19:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to the following which is on my user talk page, for wider consideration. Tyrenius 14:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, I've come across you a few times in wikispace, and as you are both a) an arts interested editor and b) as far as I can see, a voice of common sense, I would really appreciate your thoughts on this article - Stuart Brisley. For mine, I don't think that notability is asserted. However, I appreciate that the inner city arts scene of the capital of a country I don't live in isn't exactly my stomping ground. Frankly, I don't think Wikipedia benefits from a slew of articles being brought to AFD by editors who haven't heard of a notable field, and I don't want to make many more contributions along those lines, so I'd appreciate your input here as an arts savvy editor if it may prevent me from wasting the time of other editors. (BTW - I have no worries with ordure per se - I'm quite the fan of Philip Brophy - but I see no evidence of exhibitions or other notability in the article.) Please, if you could, advise me why I should not nominate this for deletion, and if you could possibly quickly give some generic guidelines re other artist related articles, I'd hope I'd benefit from that as well. Thanks, Colonel Tom 12:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

Hi, thanks for kind words and getting in touch re. the above. The statement "widely regarded as the godfather of British performance art" is true and he is well known in the field, certainly needing an article. I've added a link to his work in the Tate gallery. The article undersells him, to say the least. He gets over 11,000 google hits and, although this isn't infallible, there are, for example, shows at the ICA and South London Gallery, which assert credibility.

In general re. artists WP:BIO states "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". It then becomes a question of interpreting "widely recognised", which is problematic as most artits are not widely recognised by definition, reputations are often being known only within the field and not outside (Brisley being a case in point). The problem is compounded on Wiki by what appears to be a very small number of people editing articles on contemporary artists. I've started a number of articles on contemporary UK art figures that I thought needed to be covered, and have been amazed that they have largely remained exactly as I've left them.

Another drawback is the cultural difference between writing about art in the wider world and wiki requirements, so , for example, new editors often get clobbered for making statements without verifiable references, e.g. the Brisley ""widely regarded as the godfather of British performance art", which would be taken for granted in art writing, and yet possibly end up as AfD on wiki. The new editor then thinks wiki is an amateur shambles and leaves it. For these reasons, I advocate a certain caution, and think in the first instance that an attempt at patient dialogue with the article's originating/main editor would be beneficial. I have done this with several articles, and something which was a bit shambolic in wiki terms has ended up as a viable article. It wasn't the original editor's fault, just the initial difficulty of mastering a huge amount of wiki requirements.

Also artists don't have fans in the way that bands do, for example, when a fan is likely to start an article. Artists have galleries, collectors and art critics, who are all too busy making money to want to contribute to wiki. It may well be that the only person who contributes about an artist, certainly to begin with, is the artist, which falls foul of VANITY, though it should be noted this in itself is not a reason for deletion, if the subject is sufficiently notable. This brings us back to the original question of how to judge this. What wiki really needs is more people knowledgeable in the field, or editors willing to gain a greater knowledge of it. (I've certainly learnt a lot from through researching for articles.) This needs to be encouraged, and will only happen if there is an intelligent, tolerant and communicative stance from existing editors, certainly not by a knee-jerk and sometimes blatantly ignorant and insulting comments that I have seen in some AfDs on artists, such as "a way that can be replicated by any kid" [2] and "something kindergarden kids do"[3]. Your approach to Stuart Brisley is a good example of proceeding with caution and seeking more research, which should be encouraged.

It would be good also to liaise with WikiProject Visual arts and WikiProject Contemporary Art to contact people with a declared interest in this area.

Tyrenius 14:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone check what I wrote on Salvatore Fiume (spelling, grammar, vocabulary, ...) please? Thank you! --Daĉjo^почта 11:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Several "clay" artists, technologists and craftsmen here at Wikipedia have been working at improving the scope and quality of clay related articles. A project for the topic has been proposed and looks like it could possibly be a "daughter" project to visual arts (as well as geology, archaeology, technology, etc......(Sigh) ). If editors here would like to comment on the idea, please see the Pottery discussion page. Thank you. WBardwin 03:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Should Category:Art materials and Category:Art_media be merged? I think the intent of both categories is to describe the materials/things used rather than the style, method, etc. Category:Art materials seems to be the stronger category. Category:Art_media seems to have some item that don't belong, like Category:Printmaking and Category:Metalworking (which are jut plain old subcats of Visual arts IMO). Category:Computer art (now in Art media) seems to be better in Category:Art genres. Thoughts? --Clubmarx 23:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it, Category:Art_media seems to be what a person may usually consider the main visual arts categories, see [4]. Category:Art materials seems to be working OK as a category for the materials/ingredients.--Clubmarx 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

re Media & Genre

In some cases, especially with relatively new media such as Computer art, 'media' (i.e., technical method of creation) and 'genre' (i.e., sylistic classification) have been applied interchangeably. However, as a medium becomes more widely recognized, it isn't typically referred to as a 'genre' any longer. For example, when artists first started using computers to create works, everything computer-generated was considered "computer art". However, artists now use the computer to create varied works in many genres -- so 'Computer art' should not be in the genre category.

Actually, I think 'Computer art' is an anachronistic term. It's often applied to anything created using the media of computer applications. However, Giclee, for example, is a fine arts printmaking technique using digital files and ink jet printers. Artists creating giclée prints (at least the ones creating orignal files directly with computer apps, as opposed to digitized reproductions of works in traditional media), would typically be upset if you called their works 'Computer art'.

Some argue that 'Computer art' should only apply to works generated algorithmically by a computer. I would say those people don't understand the programming behind those works. I once curated an exhibit of art prints and sculpture which were created using the app Mathematica, and each artist's work was clearly a personal expression. In that case, the programming was the artist's tool. (Is that tool a medium or a material?)

re Media & Materials & Tools

As for media and materials: this confusion stems from a larger modern usage problem. New technologies appropriate old language and everything gets pretty convoluted.

While 'media' is synonymous with 'materials', we are restricting our usage to "A specific kind of artistic technique or means of expression as determined by the materials used or the creative methods involved: the medium of lithography." (See http://www.bartleby.com/61/51/M0195100.html.) For example, I am a printmaker, meaning I create works using various printmaking media (e.g., linocuts, etchings, etc.), and in doing so, I use materials such as paper and ink.

The Category:Art materials explains that materials are "the substances or raw ingredients that are utilized by an artist to create a work of art." So Printmaking (comprising all its media) certainly isn't a 'material'. However, ink brayers, intaglio presses, and paint palettes aren't usually considered substances or raw ingredients either (except by artists like Jasper Johns maybe :) ), but rather tools, so that's a problem.

re Technique & Media & Materials

Another problem, I think, is between technique and media.

On those pages, our explanations are very confusing:

• Category:Art media: The material or technique used by an artist to produce a work of art.
• Category:Artistic techniques: See also the category Art materials.

Additionally, the article Art techniques and materials redirects to Art materials.

Standard

We need to agree to some usage standards, and then work to ensure that Category pages are consistent with them. My suggestion for changes in definitions and category usage:

• Visual Art

• Art Media= The artistic methods, processes, or means of expression, as determined by the materials used.
• Art Materials= The substances or raw ingredients and tools that are utilized by an artist to create a work of art.
• Artistic_technique=The way in which artistic fundamentals or elements are handled [i.e., in the visual arts: line, color, shape, space, etc. -- eg., Trompe l'oeil, Chiaroscuro, etc.]

There may be some overlapping, but it should be avoided. For example, Printmaking is currently incorrectly categorized as a Technique, while Perspective projection is correctly under Technique.

OK? Any problems??
--Renice 23:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you've said, that the confusion is common usage of the words you describe. I have the following comments.

• Art Media= I agree. In a note above (which I struck through), I went so far as to suggest Art Discipline as a replacement phrase to use instead of Art Media. Items that would fall under Discipline would be painting in all forms, sculputure in all forms, mixed media in all forms, digital art in all forms, printmaking in all forms, etc.
• Art Materials= Agree completely.
• Artistic_technique= I disagree with your definition somewhat. Technique can apply to handling of physical materials (such as impasto, wash, sketch) in addition to handling of design elements as you note.
• Artistic Style= Using Chiaroscuro as an example, the wikipedia article implies that chiaroscuro is both a technique and a style. I would state confidently that Tromp L'oiel is considered a style with certain painting techniques employed to make the illusionistic imagery of that style work.

Agreement upon usage of these terms would benefit wikipedia. But even among artists and the art community, these terms are used interchangeably which just adds to the confusion. --Mrs Scarborough 19:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

- In general I agree with Renice, but i think style & genre (which already exists as a category) need to be considered too. The chiaroscuro article is somewhat confused because there is Chiaroscuro in painting (style and also technique) and chiaroscuro woodcuts (technique). Surely Trompe l'oeil is a technique, or a genre - can it be a style when examples range over several centuries? Johnbod 03:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Renice, thanks for you thoughtful explanation. I agree with what you said about Category:Art media,Category:Art materials and Category:Artistic techniques. The text descriptions should probably be updated on those category pages.

For Category:Art genres, the way I've been using it, is for artistic themes or subjects. Example: [[Category:Military artClubmarx 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

- Thinking again about this, I think it is too rigid to exclude from "technique" sub-categories of "medium". I think it is fairly common to talk about "technique" as a term for drawing, oil painting, fresco painting etc in a way that does not really fit the scheme above. Also, is each of these to be called a medium all the time? If so, you don't really have just a medium of "painting" any more. I think of and tend to describe mediums within printmaking as techniques (woodcut, metalcut etching etc). There are also "process" and "method" for printmaking, but these don't work as well elsewhere. I could give examples from other mediums, like sculpture, but I hope it's clear what I mean. Johnbod 02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What to you do with this term, a standard in contemporary art? --R.P.D. 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would put it only under Art media, not materials or technique. It might also go under Contemporary art, but I'm not sure that's defendable since artists throughout history have worked with mixed media (Bernini comes to mind, for example). --Renice 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this AfD Articles_for_deletion/Connor_Barrett highlights some important issues, and is well worth studying to see what conclusions can be drawn and what future action might be taken in similar cases. It would be helpful to make use of this WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Visual_arts and to make sure it's on your watchlist. Tyrenius 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I originally posted this to WikiProject Arts, but I haven't received a response; I thought this narrower subproject might have more input.

I have a specific question about the naming of articles for famous sculptures, but I imagine that this issue applies to all art forms. What is the specific policy for the naming of articles for pieces of art with foreign names? I see a fair amount of inconsistency here, as I find many articles with english titles (and the foreign name given in parentheses), and a fair amount with articles with native language titles (and the english title given in parentheses). For example:

• Native name: Garçon à la pipe, L’Absinthe, Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon
• English name: Apollo and Daphne (Bernini), Triton Fountain, Ecstasy of St Theresa, Impression, Sunrise, Luncheon of the Boating Party

Is there a pre-existing policy for artwork that we can follow? Can we agree on some consistent naming standard for artwork? --DDG 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Usual naming conventions in museums and art history books are all over the map. If an art historian names a work after the fact, it is translated into whatever language the image is printed or shown in. Works that are specifically named or marked by the artist are listed with that name in that language. There is no consistency on if the title is translated in parentheses accompanying the original language as in the example of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, but this specific work is not mentioned often as its English translation. What I'm saying is the naming convention seems to go with what the artist intended, if known. If not known, it is just translated. No solution offered here, just some info. --Mrs Scarborough 19:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have recently created an article for the Campbell's Soup Cans series by Andy Warhol and am now working on the Haystacks by Claude Monet. I have recently noticed the Sunflowers (series of paintings) article. I am untrained in art having never painted, drawn or sketched and having never taken any visual arts classes. I do attend 3-5 exhibits a year, but have a lot to learn. I am trying to determine if it would be uncouth to group different painting series in one category named Painting Series regardless of what era/movement they are from. Can I get some opinions here. TonyTheTiger 19:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

O.K. No comments. I guess I will just take the bull by the horns. Here it is Category:Painting series. Let me know if there are any WikiProject Visual arts categories this should be added to. TonyTheTiger 20:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Tony! Please have a look on your user-talk: There I see 2 replys. --RPD 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Just wanted to announce that User:Lonebiker has courageously decided to revamp the article on contemporary art, which is currently in a state of disarray. If you would like to help out with this rather large undertaking, discussion is already underway at our talk pages (User_Talk:Lonebiker and User_Talk:Gzkn). As I am not an art expert at all, I'm hoping some of you may provide better insight as to whether or not postmodern art should be merged with contemporary art, as discussed in our talk pages. Cheers, Gzkn 02:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask members of this project for help at the article Pop art. The sections about Origin of the term "pop art" and Pop art in Britain were edited by an editor whos main indent seems to be to establish John McHale as the main artist of pop art. This included an attempt to change the attribution of Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? from Richard Hamilton to McHale based on original resarch by McHale's son, which as far as I can see was not published by reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I and other editors have removed some of this edits per BLP concerns. But the article would need the attention of an editor knowledgable in its subject. The same applys to the article about John McHale (artist). I hope this is the right place for my request. Thank you. --VirtualDelight 21:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

On the main article page, I would add an appropriate expand tag WP:RFE. I am not sure what is most appropriate, but there are options to specify issues around neutrality or accuracy. Clubmarx 07:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kitsch is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 22:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at this so we can get an informed debate. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.