Talk:Lowbrow (art movement)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lowbrow vs. lowbrow art

I propose this page be moved to "lowbrow art" and a stub be written in its place. Links would include this page, as well as "low culture" and "highbrow" (antonym).

My reasoning is that this page used to be a redirect to "highbrow" and is linked to by such. (In fact, highbrow still owns the "low-brow" redirect.) The natural antonym to "highbrow" (intellectual artistry of all kinds) is "lowbrow" (anti-intellectual artistry of all kinds, incl. e.g. humour), not a single populist visual art movement (nifty as it may be). – Wisq 21:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "Lowbrow (art movement)"? That's the usual way to clarify different uses of the word. -- Scarequotes 21:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I just suggested "Lowbrow art" because the term was actually used in the opening paragraph (bolded). – Wisq 05:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Pictures

I have to admit I don't know much about this type of art, but I gfigure any article like this should have some pictures to demonstrate what it is.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but copyright issues are the main problem. William (Bill) Bean 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Needed

I have no doubt that the paragraph in the History section starting with "Writers have noted" is accurate, but these writers should be cited. William (Bill) Bean 15:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You must verify your material with reference citations per WP:V

WP:V is very important. You must do this in order for your article to have legitimate status in Wikipedia. Mattisse(talk) 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User Mattisse has an indefinite away from Wiki message in the talk page. Will someone else please validate the citations and clear the tag? William (Bill) Bean 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Almera

Hey folks. My Marco Almera article was tagged for notability, so I am hoping someone here can help. I started his article because he was listed as a notable artist of lowbrow on this page (and because i'm a big fan of his work). I couldn't find too much about him on the internet, perhaps someone has some of the magazine articles about him, so we can improve his article? Thanks Pepperjack 16:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is "Well Known"

Stevegallery, please clarify what criteria need to be met for an artist to be "well known". I tried to add Mitch O'Connell to the list because I've seen his work reviewed in several places. Is there anything remotely objective we can use here? Google hits? O'Connell gets 24,000 to 13,500 for Gary Taxali, 12,900 for Marion Peck, 8,200 for Anthony Ausgang,etc. How about hits limited to wikipedia.org? It's 7 for O'Connell, 6 for Taxali. Peck and Ausgang come in ahead at 13 and 18. These criteria are obviously a bit silly, but some clarification on what determines the threshold for noteworthiness would be helpful. 128.255.85.2 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I had deleted Mitch O'Connell because he does not have an article. I consider any artist who does not have an article, or who has an article that is tagged with Notability, to not be well-known. Steve (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the article so that it nows uses Category:Lowbrow pop surrealism artists instead of having a list of artists. I agree that "well-known" is a judgement-call. There have been continuous problems with this article - people continously add themsleves or various random artists to the article. Hopefully this new way of doing the list will help. Steve (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
128.255.85.2 may want to look at Wikipedia's verification policy and notability guidelines. This pretty much covers who should be included. As a rule of thumb, redlinks (without articles) are usually removed from lists. Try creating an article if this artist meets the notability guidelines. Google hits are really only a snapshot of notability, since they can be unreliable. freshacconcispeaktome 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Blab!11Cover.jpg

The image Image:Blab!11Cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)