Talk:Lyrical Abstraction/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Use of images

Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, (Salmon1 17:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

What on earth are you on about? Naturally the picture links to the painter's article - it should. That the artist may be one of many editors on what seems a perfectly good article is a separate issue. If you think the other artists deserve articles (which may very well not be the case - Landfield clearly meets WP:BIO, but it is most unlikely that all 33 do) then get on and write them. Two uses hardly amounts to "overly abundant links". Johnbod 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnbod→ rvt; there should be a pic at the top of the article & this move creates white space.

Hi Johnbod! Understanding your reasoning on 14:02, 12 November 2007, I moved Pat Lipsky's image to paragraph Thirty Three Artists who participated in the Exhibition: Lyrical Abstraction, 1970-1971. On 14:04, 12 November 2007 you, Johnbod made a change: rvt; there should be a pic at the top of the article & this move creates white space.

My reply to the revertion:

1. The place where the image is reverted to: (rvt; there should be a pic at the top of the article) is where the French Lyrical Abstraction is being discussed. Pat Lipsky’s image is from 1970. The French Lyrical Abstraction was a post World War II movement, 1945-1956. If there is no image at the moment from the French artists who painted in the manner of lyrical abstraction (1945 - 1956) then is better to wait rather then to present misleading information. The encyclopedia is about correct information and clarity of information.

2.(this move creates white space.) I am sure the white space can be eliminated. Pat Lipskys work is representative of the Exhibition: Lyrical Abstraction, 1970-1971 so it belongs alongside of the other representative of that exhibition, Ronnie Landfield. The encyclopedia is about correct information and clarity of information.

Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, (Salmon1 15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

The picture was next to the lead, where they should be a picture. There is no requirement under either MOS or fair use guidelines for a picture to be exactly in the most relevant spot in the article. I am finding your edits increasingly odd. The white space could of course be eliminated, but you did not do so. There is nothing "misleading" at all about the present state. Johnbod 15:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the MOS the lead should summarize the whole article, which this one does not do. Any pic relevant to the article should therefore be able to illustrate the lead. The solution is to expand the lead a bit. Johnbod 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anastrophe! Please consider:

  • Ronnie Landfield's image titled, For William Blake 1968,

Its use in the article is inappropriate for the following reasons:

1. He was one of the thirty three artists who were represented in the circulating exhibitions 1970-1971 which established the trend of American Lyrical Abstraction in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

2. According to Wikipedia rules about Self-promotion: "It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable."

See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."

Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles where Wikipedia users who are the subject of a Wikipedia article are listed. Ronnie Landfield - modernist (talk · contribs) is in the list. Ronnie Landfield is represented by four images in his own article and it is linked to Lyrical Abstraction.

It would bring this article into compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines if we were to replace Ronnie Landfield’s image with Pat Lipsky’s image which is already on the page: Image:Spiked Red.jpg|Pat Lipsky, Spiked Red, 1970.

Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, (Salmon1 22:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

There's plenty of room for more images in the article & they should be moved up to the opening sections. Absolutely no need to remove this one. Johnbod 23:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia rules have to be adhered to. In the art world there is a very strong copyright constraint. For example publishing a painting image in a book could cost $1000.00 - $2000.00 dollars. The artists/editors who own the copyright by virtue of creating their own work are the only ones who are heavily advantaged. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a venue for advertisement. If the artist died after 1937 or is alive, then photographs or scans of ANY image created by an artist do not belong to the public domain irrespective of when the photographs were taken. Therefore in the case of contemporary artists the ARS (Artists Right Society) or VAGA (Visual Artists and Galleries Association) demands fees for copyright permissions. You can see how some action has to be taken to maintain accuracy and provide a level playing field. That is why Wikipedia rules limit the individual artist’s/editor ability to take advantage of the copy right restraint vs. everyone else. It has to be our common desire to provide an accurate non biased presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmon1 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC) (Salmon1 01:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
The image has a fair use rationale & I think the use here is clearly justified - all possible images are likely to be non-free. The case for including it in the other article using it seems rather weaker, yet you do not complain there. Johnbod 02:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


One problem has to be solved at a time. The article, Lyrical Abstraction, has been improved somewhat by the addition of new references and a list of thirty three artists who were chosen for a circulating exhibition titled Lyrical Abstraction,(1970-1971). This exhibition represented the trend, Lyrical Abstraction, coined by the collector Larry Aldrich and welcomed by John I. H. Baur, Curator, Whitney Museum of American Art. They were shown together in a circulating exhibition from 1970 through 1971.[1], [2] Thirty artists of the thirty three are still alive. At this time there are four articles representing four out of the thirty three artists:

The article has still major problems aside from the self promotion issue but Wikipedia is a continuously evolving encyclopedia.

The problem at hand is:

Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Thirty artists from the thirty three are still alive. It is the responsibility of the editors to create articles and to solicit images for them. The solution never lies in accepting the wrong because it is easy.