Talk:Women artists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
  • Template error: argument title is required. (details)

Contents

[edit] 2005 edits

I am still in the process of cutting and pasting in all my text, but i wanted to start putting elements of it up for everyone to edit. It would also be great if someone could fill in the Ancient and Byzantine parts of these entry as those are well beyond my area of expertise. Also, what about non-western art? I know that in parts of Africa women are responsible for creating textiles and in other parts of Africa women are responsible for painting the exteriors of buildings.--209.130.203.234 20:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This page is becoming quite long, does someone have a good method of separating it while retaining the goal of creating a comprehensive look at women artists.--209.130.203.234 20:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to proof this, but i am not a good proofer. Maybe someone else can try? --964267sr 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, i don't think this article is too long yet, but lets keep an eye on it. I could see it linking to a dedicated page about 20th century and 21st century Women Artists, as there are many more artists from this time period, and there is more known about those women.--964267sr 02:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Women in Art

Currently "Women in Art" redirects here, so this page should definitely have information about the 20th/21st century as well. I added an expansion tag. - AKeen 18:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You also mentioned that the 19th century could use some expansion. There were no Pre-Raphaelite women artists mentioned (that I recognised) apart from photographer Julia Margaret Cameron, so I've added a list of the better-known ones, and some relevant book references. Charivari 08:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Stunning special on women's art in Latest Art a new British magazine edited naturally by women. Wimmin 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Please somebody else profile the artists featured in the magazine above which Wikipedia has not got articles for. Wikipedia has one of the best files on women artists now. Wimmin 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There is more - the magazine gives out a link to this page! Does this mean we need to tell 'upstairs' that this page is the subject of 'live' media coverage? Link to Latest Art link to here Wimmin 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Please watch Ruth Rix. Anon editor has removed her from category 'British artist' and replaced with 'Jewish artist'. Looks awfully like an attempt to downgrade Wimmin 15:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

When I typed 'Women in art' into the search box I expected an article discussing women as featured in art - in other words an article discussing phenomena such as bad girl art, good girl art, and others. I cannot also find any useful category for that, and it appears that the main category for the 'women artists' article is Category:Women in art. This is confusing: perhaps some renaming and disambig is needed?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, why is there no category at bottom of article linking to women's issues and politics? Wimmin 11:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
There was no category 'women's issues and politics', but I added categories 'Feminism' and 'Gender studies', which I think pretty well covers it.MdArtLover 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am a bit leery

about leaping in here, but, i discovered this sentence,

"In Art Deco Hildreth Meiere produced relational mosaics."

and am wondering about the use of the word "relational?" Any ideas? I am quite familiar with HM's work and . . . . . . . . ........ ? Carptrash 04:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a possible mistype of "repertory," which she is described as in her own article. I don't think "relational" really adds anything. - AKeen 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many images?

This article is getting a little image heavy. All these images running down each side of the screen are starting to look pretty cluttered and somewhat repetitive (3 by Artemisia Gentileschi). Maybe there could be a small thumbnail gallery at the bottom of each section and one main picture in each section - though I have a feeling that galleries would soon expand out of hand, as well. - AKeen 15:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Women's literature" as an area of study

(I am posting this message on the discussion pages of several likely articles and lists; sorry for the cross-posting):

I'd like to invite anyone interested in women's cultural production to read and comment on a draft article, " Women's literature in English." It began in response to the recent removal of " Woman Writers" as a category. It's close to being finished, but a few more eyes would be really helpful. Thanks! scribblingwoman 16:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: Yesterday I submitted the category for review for reinstatement. The discussion is getting quite frothy. Okay, that's an understatement. (I cited this article, BTW, as a good example of work on women's cultural production). scribblingwoman 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uhhhh...

"Women were often sexually harassed in artistic expressions that were not typically signed. This includes many forms of textile production, including weaving, embroidery, and lace-making"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.140.154 (talk • contribs)

Yeah that part didn't make sense at all, and I guess it just previously slipped by. I think it was meant that women were typically sequestered into these fields. I've updated the text - AKeen 21:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malvina Hoffman

should either be removed from the introduction to the 20th Century section, or the word "painters" should be changed to "artist," or "sculptors" should be added - something. I favor removing "Painters" and doing something else because there is a bias/misunderstanding among some folks that the words "artist" and "painter" are synonymous, and, as Sportin' Life says in Porgy and Bess, It Ain't Necessarily So. Carptrash 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction, suggestions

  • As it is, the introduction reads like an intro to an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Leading off with the Nochlin quote really isn't appropriate imo, as it is an intentionally provocative and skewed question that doesn't really introduce the subject properly. Perhaps this quote could be moved to the 20th century art section or something. Typically, the lead should summarize the article instead of introduce a question which is never mentioned again in the text. Also, this is a fairly large article to be without any inline cites. Perhaps the primary author(s) of the article could remedy this? Just a couple suggestions which would greatly improve this article imo. Wickethewok 19:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this whole article was likely someone's school essay. The intro as it stands is not very appropriate for an encyclopedia. I think we should remove it (except for the last paragraph, maybe) and just start out with the second section, "issues", which gives a better overview. - AKeen 14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I would be inclined to agree with this line of thought. The intro makes the whole article seem a bit POV. Paul Haymon 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The article - the beginning at least - is not working on my monitor. Some wierd overlapping of elements. However I am reluctant to start moving stuff around. Meanwhile, what is happening here? Is it, as John and Yoko said, Just like starting all over? Carptrash 14:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the intro notice. I think the intro needs to be rewritten from scratch, as previously it was just a provocative quote. As for the rest of the article, a lot of it is still written in "report" still and needs a trim. Much of the content was pasted in, completely finished, a long time ago (see any edit in Nov of 2005). This article may indeed need a lot of rewriting. - AKeen 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twenty-First Century

Twenty-First Century section started by being filled with publicity of artists of no particular notability. I believe that this is undesired and not respectful. 89.159.156.52 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


The 21st century is only eight years old. In order to distinguish it from the 20th century, one must highlight emerging artists. Mid-career artists cross over into the last century. The artists selected for this article have all won major awards and are recognized publicly for the caliber and ingenuity of their art. Please provide better examples of uniquely 21st century artists before deleting these. Campcloudrimwaldo (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All your edits [1] consist of inserting Becca Bernstein‎ in articles, so you do not seem a disinterested party in this discussion. Tyrenius (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Subsequently the section was reinstated. I reverted two artists who do not have bios on Wikipedia, but there are questions remaining regarding the 'selection' process. For instance, 3 of the 4 now mentioned hail from Portland, Oregon, which suggests an agenda. If several 21st century artists are to be mentioned, then the above point has merit: choose a handful who have unquestionable and international notability. That being said, I am not certain it is within the encyclopedia's purview to posit which hot things will stay hot, i.e., is the section even encyclopedic, or is it just an invitation for promotion? JNW (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a bad approach generally, imho, leaving Emin, Whiteread etc as C20th artists. Better to have a section "contemporary artists" with an arbitary self-declared start point of artists who became notable from - say - 1980, or some such date. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Have a go at it, Johnbod. Cheers, JNW (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I've done a simple split & added a couple of lines. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There are serious omissions here, Jenny Saville and Sarah Lucas for a start. Tomma Abts (Turner Prize winner 2006)... Tyrenius (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Stick 'em in then Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Contemporary art section is a good addition to the article but is dominated by British artists (there is much more to contemporary art than the Turner prize) and artists who began working or gained prominence decades ago. This leaves the 21st century almost completely out. So why replace it with this section? Just add the new section to the 20th century or leave it and bring back a section on 21st century. The list of greatest women artists ever doesn't belong in the Contemporary art section at all (unless you find a list of greatest contemporary artists). I'll wait to hear your thoughts before making changes. Campcloudrimwaldo (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I just used the names already there; certainly others need adding, although it does seem to me women artists are especially prominent in England in recent years. Following from the discussion above, I just don't think that a 7 year (one month) period should be treated the same as a 100 year period. Somewhere around 1980 I think there is a useful break. What do others think? Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It does not seem imperative to adhere to a 'century' format, esp. considering, as has been stated, the relative newness of the 21st. A 'contemporary' or 'current' heading works. But as I offered earlier, the inclusion of contemporary artists gets sticky; even assuming good faith, we have our favorites. If we subtract a British artist in favor of an American, someone is bound to argue on behalf of the inclusion of more contemporary women artists from Russia, France, and India. In short, the notability of whoever is mentioned must transcend debate, and attempts to note particular artists can not be taken as all-encompassing. JNW (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if we want it to be a value in encyclopedia, and to become a serious source for research and not some kind of joke, then some contemporary British, Oragon and other artists will have to wait to become more notable. We have time, the century just astarted. 89.159.156.52 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK Tyrenius, can you please explain in what way Jenny Saville and Sarah Lucas and Tomma Abts have contributed to the history of women's art and have influenced life and art and culture, and gained encyclopedic notability, according to Wikipedia courtesy and civilized negotiation and in good faith. Try also to find some reliable sources in books, and not prizes and magazine and journals' occasional papers.89.159.156.52 (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Also please explin about the cultural influence of Linder Sterling and Ruth Rix and why people around the world, who are not gallerists of young British artists, should be interested.89.159.156.52 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To ip number 89.159.156.52, you deleted Lynda Benglis, Kara Walker, Shazia Sikander, Yayoi Kusama and several others - ALL OF WHOM - have articles on Wikipedia, and are notable, - Don't do it again...If you are an expert, open an account, and take those unnotable articles to WP:AfD, but not with an IP number, they won't let you. By the way Jenny Saville, Sarah Lucas and Tomma Abts are listed in a prominent contemporary art context, a status which they currently enjoy. Modernist (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agreeing with Modernist. Please study WP:V and WP:RS. You don't get to determine what is and isn't an acceptable source. You can find Sarah Lucas on the Tate web site. She was one of the original Young British Artists who showed at the seminal Freeze show and later in the Sensation exhibition which achieved world prominence. Jenny Saville is likewise one of the YBAs and was also in Sensation. There is some useful information about her on the Saatchi Gallery site. Tomma Abts won a world-famous prize in 2006, the Turner Prize. That alone establishes notability. I hope this helps. Tyrenius (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way although Jenny Saville, Sarah Lucas and Tomma Abts are listed in a prominent contemporary art context, (a status which they currently enjoy) no one has indicated that they changed the course of women's art. Although a case can be made for Kusama, Schneeman, Benglis, and Yoko Ono along with Eva Hesse and a few others since the 1960s. - Modernist (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is Women artists, not Women who changed the course of women's art. Tyrenius (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No this doesn't help. One big exhibition etc is not what I was expecting from editors here. In that case, why not put back the 21 Century category, and put those you seem to appreciate under the 21 century category as it was before. Perhaps this is a solution. At least this will respect artists like Yayoi Kusama and Yoko Ono who have carried work from the 20th to the 21th century and whose contribution is very significant to many art lovers, and who could remain under Contemporary Art section, while the new British artists from the list who seem to appear very recently and to impress mainly the British capitalistic system can be listed in the 21 Centruy new section. By the way, Yes, I am an expert, but for the moment it seems that I am not needed here. So I quit. 89.159.156.52 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To be as clear as possible beofre leaving this discussion: to Tyreniusy: when we look at philosophy section, we expect to find notable philosophers even though the title of the page only says "philosophy". The same goes for contemporary women artists, unless you wish that this category will be without credibility. A private collection web page is nice, but unencyclopedic. To Modernist: I wish to quote the 2 last sentences (last 2 lines of the page only) which are in my view problematic, and to put here for discussion the 2 sentences that I was proposing instead: 1--Here are the problematic 2 last sentences as it is now: "Artists on the list range from the well known (Tracey Emin, Paula Rego, Frida Kahlo, Annie Leibovitz) to the relatively unknown — Linder Sterling and Ruth Rix. Prominent Contemporary women artists also include Yoko Ono, Jenny Saville, Sarah Lucas, Tomma Abts (Turner Prize winner 2006), Kara Walker, Carolee Schneeman, Yayoi Kusama, Lynda Benglis, and Shazia Sikander among others." 2--And here are the 2 last sentences corrected in the way that I have proposed it: "Artists on the list range from the well known (Tracey Emin, Paula Rego, Frida Kahlo, Annie Leibovitz) to relatively unknown artists. Prominent Contemporary women artists also include Yoko Ono, Carolee Schneeman and Yayoi Kusama among others." In this way, until the argument will reach more agreement, we shall have in the last end of the Women Artists page, as JNW suggested, artists who gained "unquestionable and international notability", as is the case, in my view, in the whole text up to its last (quoted) 2 sentences. Take good care of this page, 89.159.156.52 (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

People disagree its the nature of the beast. We are all doing our best, WP:AGF. Modernist (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wimmin's contribution to Wikipedi are limited only to adding the last artist in the page to Wikipedia, this doesn't seem disinterested party. I still insist that the last list of young British artists is a promotion. Let the commercial Journalistic event of 2006 stay at least in the 2006 section, and do not push it back in time falsely into the to earlier century.89.159.156.52 (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest in all simplicity that international notability will remain a criteria here.84.192.183.17 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I further suggest, that few One-woman exhibitions in museums around the world, as well as books by notable art theorists (and not group national exhibitions or exhibitions in private galleries combined with local journals etc) will serve here as criteria to bring up references to individual artists. Otherwise the present period (be it Contemporary artists or Twenty-First Century) will become a promotional battle between Canadian, British, and soon other promoters, rather than a reliable encyclopedic source. 84.192.183.17 (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues in constructing a history of women artists

This section is an article in its own right and has been transferred to The depiction of women artists in art history, where it can be explored in depth. Tyrenius (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

After some efforts to get the page better, Tyrenius started again on his (or her) promotion of British artists connected to Saatchi gallery (and on whose sites he or she is working all the time on the Wikipedia). Enough is enough! I am going to take these new names out. Let these artists first do some international museum shows and be respected by the international at community. 89.159.156.52 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have left a warning on your talk page to desist from personal attacks.[2] You have succeeded in removing information about the Turner Prize, which is a major museum show. The other artists also have an international reputation. I have restored them. Tyrenius (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Tyrenius, you 'attack' just like dot52 did. It's a simple difference of opinion. It does appear you are lending far more credibility to the Saatchi gallery than is generally given these days. Saatchi is one wealthy arts patron whose tastes are increasingly ignored outside the UK since the close of the Whitney's Shock Art Exhibit of 1999. You are focusing on an era that has come and gone and insisting it defines women's art today. The term contemporary is specific in art - like modern, for instance. Your editing is bullish through your constant reversions. Please focus on your own expertise rather than deleting others'. WP:BOLD Campcloudrimwaldo (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a difference of opinion. You inserted a list of artists, most of whom don't even have articles.[3] Becca Bernstein does (created by you) and the references in the article are somewhat flimsy to say the least. It's not a dead cert to even pass WP:NOTABILITY, and yet you quibble over artists that have had international mainstream coverage. I have not mentioned the Saatchi Gallery. I find it surprising—and rather under-rating these artists' own abilities—that the only way you can conceive of them is in terms of Saatchi. Tomma Abts has nothing to do with Saatchi. Stella Vine was launched into the media by him, but very quickly forged her own path. As an aside, regarding Charles Saatchi, I find this observation in The Times of November 2007 to be pertinent: he is "Still one of our most important collectors, despite a certain amount of art world snobbery suggesting the contrary."[4] You say his tastes are "increasingly ignored". Really? He launched Damien Hirst and considers him a "genius"[5]. Hirst is the world's most expensive artist.[6] It seems to me that Saatchi's tastes have dominated world art.

As for my "bullish reversions", I take it you mean the removal of text such as, "The twentieth century brought many new opportunities for women in the arts and they flooded into the openings that arose in all media. The new century also saw an array of new movements and rapid transitions", which violates all the core wiki editing policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V.

I suggest you ease up a bit, familiarise yourself with wiki protocols, which are very different to art world ones, and take advantage of experienced editors such as Johnbod and Modernist to help form this article on an important subject, which is certainly in need of attention. Take a look at some featured articles to see the ideal.

Tyrenius (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Delighted to see Tyrenius, Johnbod and Modernist lend their efforts to this, because each brings knowledge and experience to the task, without a desire to promote particular artists or POV. JNW (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Saatchi launched Damien Hirst fifteen years ago. There are young artists with more influence on art today who were just learning the color wheel when Saatchi promoted Hirst. My main issue with the editing on this page is the repeated exclusion of the 21st century, and the wrongful insistence that the contemporary art section is enough. Deleting sections effects other Wiki pages when there are other solutions. Your example of edited text is of little interest to me. My interest lies in the current trends of art and artists working today. I started creating and editing pages based on that interest when a simple search for living, working, important 21st century artists on wikipedia resulted in very little. I may not edit Wikipedia as a full-time occupation, like some of you apparently do, but that does not undervalue my contributions or the subjects I've chosen. Waiting 10-15 years after an artist's work has first been publicly recognized as significant is not a formula for encyclopedic notability. WP:DBTN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campcloudrimwaldo (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I assure you the 21st Century is not being excluded. Tomma Abts won the Turner in it and Stella Vine became prominent in it. But of course there is much more to be added. This is only at the beginning of this section. Please read up on the policies and referencing system which has all been placed on your talk page. That will make it a lot easier to create content which meets wiki's requirements. You are right about the deficiency in art articles, and you are welcome to create them, but they need to be created properly, which doesn't happen overnight. There is quite a steep learning curve. Maybe you would be interested in starting Women artists in the 21st Century. Just click the red link to start. Tyrenius (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No text has been deleted, or names removed, as a result of changing the "C21st" section to a "contemporary artists" one, which has clear concensus support here. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title change?

Does anyone else feel that grammatically "women artists" is not right? I feel that "female artists" would be more suitable, any thoughts or suggestions? TheOneException (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Society of Female Artists was established in 1855; it is now called The Society of Women Artists.[7] I think it is the more PC term nowadays. Tyrenius (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The recent discussion

After reading the recent discussion and following contributers to their own pages: I agree with the persons who insist to put only those women artists whose art has gained international (and not simply commercial and local) recognition. The criteria should be at least few One-woman shows in international museums as someone suggested, and essays in books written by distinguished art historians, and not collectors and interested national art magazines. Only in this way, I believe, the Wikipedia page on Women artists will contribute to the issue of womens' art rather than lead to degrade it. Putting all these names of artists who has no influence on the international scene, (only because they showed in GB or has been collected etc.,), is not in honor and respect to the subject of Women artists, quite the contrary: the credibility of really prominent women artists is getting lost, as the whole section is getting less and less credible. I can only congratulate Modernist for adding really prominent artists to the list. Contrary to Modernist, the interests of the other editors involved is very clear from the outside. Each Canadian and YBA artists that they have added have no influence that I am aware of. A page in Wikipedia is not a reason to be included in this section. Artists of the 21th century who do not have yet international influential achievement in the field of art should wait until they gain a significant value. Nobody outside GB cares who DIDN'T win the Turner prize. With some distance, it is easy to see this. When I see all the attempt to add women artists of no significance to the list (some attempts failed and some returned again) I ask myself if this is not on the way to destroy the section.Contemplating21 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC) In an attempt to keep the credibility of 2 major women artists who have become indeed icons in the international feminist community, I have deleted the name of an artist for whom we can't claim such status. I try to bring into the discussion the idea, that if we do not exaggerate less major artists we shall keep up the credibility of the whole matter of women artists. Contemplating21 (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this, though I would be happy to remove it again if concensus here supports that. The passage, with words removed by Contemplating21 in bold, is: "Figures like Artemesia Gentileschi and Frida Kahlo, and to a lesser extent Gwen John, emerged from relative obscurity to become feminist icons."
Whilst we are witch-hunting, can we agree to lose: Elizabeth Catlett, Dulah Marie Evans, Nellie Walker and maybe Louise Berliawsky Nevelson? Ideally we should have a list, but pending that we should, as Contemplating says, go for those with some international reputation. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's been reverted again - now "to a lesser extent" is weasel words, it seems! Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gwen John figures already in the section. To add descriptions like icon to a "lesser degree" is senseless. Editors in the 20th and contemporary sections need to keep to consensuous proportions, in order for these sections to gain dignified credibility.Contemplating21 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In its context, being an "icon to a lesser extent" is weasel words indeed, because either one is, or one isn't, an icon. The two other artists mentioned there are icons. Why to lessen the impact of the idea? The name deleted is quite unknown.Contemplating21 (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unknown to you, perhaps! There seem to be five recent biographies, plus her letters etc etc. But she is not a C21st artist certainly. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, we each can bring something to the table. Probably some names can be withdrawn. But Louise Nevelson is very well-known in the U.S., and though the point on 'icons' is well-taken, Gwen John is far from unknown, and has undergone a robust reassessment in the past several decades. JNW (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree to these 2 points. These two artists should be in the general section, of course, like the other artists. But, I see among the artists listed in 20th century and in the Contemporary section a number of figures who had became, in my view, international icons. Yet, I think that we can't simply add figures to the "icons" sentence in a casual manner. With due respect, only very few have reached a status such as the two mentioned. I would not add the idea of a "lesser degree icons" which to me seems absurd. Contemplating21 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, If this will have concensus here, I added the word Eminent at the beginning of the 20th century section. (Eminent artists include). So, the figure discussed, John, is in this list in any case. As for being an "icon", check the dictionary, or perhaps lets leave it as it is now.Contemplating21 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OOOOUups, I see that Johnbod objected in the second. I have no problem with you objection. I tried to solve a problem. Your speedy revert is OK with me.Contemplating21 (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)