Ciao! There is a guy user:Ceoil who is patronizing several articles, reverting the standard painting infoboxes I am adding. Can you help and have him stop? Ciao and thanks. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 06:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The infoboxes are not required and clearly several other editors who have worked very long and hard on those articles have determined that they are unnecessary there. Please respect that decision. Thank you... Modernist ( talk) 10:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll respect you arbitrate, but honestly your motivation leaves me puzzled! "Having worked hard" on something doesn not give you the absolute right to decide what and what not has to be on those articles! Are you sure you are neutral in the matter (I ask this with no malice, be sure). Ciao e a presto da -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 11:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I expressed my opinion, since you asked; take it or leave it... Modernist ( talk) 11:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok. But what this experience with van der Weyden showed me that you belong to a specific lobby commanding and controlling a group of articles at their will. Not a nice thing to discover that even experienced editors like me are forbidden to introduce serious modifications to a group of articles. Hope I'm wrong. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 15:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I belong to no lobby, I am an editor here pure and simple, as I said - take it or leave it... Modernist ( talk) 15:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually I recently raised the infobox issue on the talkpage and I'm certainly not part of any lobby, but I do keep articles watched after I review them. When an article goes through the FAC process it is scrutinized, as this one was, for MoS issues, consistency, and so on. The infobox is not a required element, and there's really no reason to add one to such a lovely article. Perhaps this could be discussed on the article talkpage? Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 15:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

As though working well with others was some sort of bad behavior; we should all function in a solitary vacuum; give me a break... Modernist ( talk) 15:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

╟─ Treasury Tag► international waters─╢ 13:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree with Brad, who agrees with me - please leave Ceoil alone, thank you... Modernist ( talk) 13:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I saw your comment about Pound on Ceoil's page, but was logging off, thinking I could wait until today to respond. Now it's gone, and Ceoil's been blocked. Anyway, a short answer to the question, I think, is that Pound was mentally ill. I've been to the library and have books, so will start working on the article, and hopefully a more interesting answer will present itself. As for the material that was deleted: Pound's Cantos are not easy to understand; his life is not easy to understand; but the one thing scholars are clear about is the Cantos were based on troubador songs. Why that material was deleted is beyond me. Is there a policy about removing uncited material as opposed to trying to find a source? I've had a look at Active Banana's contributions and there seems to be a tendency toward quickly removing rather than finding a source. Also, does all this have anything to do with Ceoil's block? Sorry, long post. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 19:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Firstly thank you for adding this, and yes from what I have learned Pound was mentally ill. I am not aware of material being deleted; if material is uncited it should be tagged and remain tagged for a reasonable amount of time (years if needs be in some cases) until the material can be sourced. Deleting materials that aren't copyright violations is basically unnecessary and in my opinion should not happen. Unless there are such serious issues that the material can cause damage. Ceoil's block stemmed from a rather unfortunate mishandling of communications between a couple of editors and an admin concerning Ceoil's basic dislike for tags; and his rather colorful way of expressing himself. Ceoil is an excellent editor - invaluable to the project and he has a short fuse when it comes to the rule-niks. Sometimes I think of Lenny Bruce... Modernist ( talk) 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

(Apologies in advance for the lurking and trolling, but that last sentence is pretty funny and probably apt, although things didn't work out too well for Bruce in the end...) freshacconci talktalk 20:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Here's a little example from the history of the Pound article [1]. Sections were tagged and then huge chunks deleted. It's taken a while to get through the history to understand exactly what happened, but I think this may have initiated later events. Certainly there is no reason to carve out pieces of article like this in such a cavalier manner. The good thing, of course, is that we'll end up with a better article, but only because someone is willing to fix. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I see, fortunately all of that material can be recovered, and sources found for whatever is worth keeping. I take note that Ceoil as an editor builds articles, and some editors can't handle that and need to delete material for some reason. There are all kinds of misreadings of the policy and guidelines that cause premature deletions under the umbrella of WP:OR while a simple search for sources proves more useful... Modernist ( talk) 20:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hopefully they'll unblock him and cut him some slack, you are always welcome here btw Fresh... Modernist ( talk) 21:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Which rationale should be used to upload this image of young Ezra? I know the photograph was taken in 1898 and he died in the early 70s. Don't know anything else. Thanks in advance. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 16:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I think it should be used as Fair use; if the 1898 picture was published prior to 1923 it can be considered in the pd however I would imagine that it was published after 1923... Modernist ( talk) 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I hope it's right, but easily fixed if not. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 21:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Can you explain (probably on the article talk page to keep the discussion centralized) why we should be using a copyright image of some colored rectangles to represent a person when the fair use policies clearly suggest that copyright images need to be explained contextually and the explanation for this image is way down in the article and we have plenty of room to place the image BY the explanation? [2] Active Banana ( talk) 23:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

You were already going there- Thanks! Active Banana ( talk) 23:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The painting can be the lede image there is nothing wrong, people expect to see a Rothko painting when they visit that page. This dispute has been argued several years ago, let it be... Modernist ( talk) 23:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

[3]

[4]

If we work on The Polish Rider it could be featured on the front page as a good new article, see The Polish Rider. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 17:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply

TFOWR 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi - I might not be regarded as an established user but here goes. Saw your edit on Central Park. I want to totally upgrade the article, but I'm a newuser, and not a New Yorker. I am, however, educated to a high degree in the English language, and keen to see my edits work well. Thought you might like to collaborate. "Two heads" and all that - let me know okay? Markdask ( talk) 16:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll try to keep an eye over there, however do your best... Modernist ( talk) 16:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply

My best is actually quite good, when I put my mind to it. :) Markdask ( talk) 05:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Modernist, just wondering if you have any reference for the name of this work by Kirchner? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kirchner_-_Bildnis_Otto_Mueller.jpg

The sources I have all refer to it as 'Portrait of Otto Müller' and not 'Mueller'.

Knavesdied ( talk) 21:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Basically both are correct - Müller is the German spelling and - Otto Müller needs disambiguation when linked, while the English version is Otto Mueller and is working as a link to the artist... Modernist ( talk) 22:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply

So would you mind if I change the link to be Otto Müller so the hyperlink doesn't need disambiguation but the title of the work of art matches that in the English language references such as the British Museum catalogue? Knavesdied ( talk) 18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Why not, if it works... Modernist ( talk) 19:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Otto Mueller was a "Die Brücke" artist like Kirchner, so no Otto Müller. And that has nothing to with spelling! Greetings,-- GerardusS ( talk) 20:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Did you tell that to Knavesdied?.. Modernist ( talk) 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi GerardusS, this isn't really a discussion of Otto Mueller's name or its spelling, but of what Kirchner called his 1915 woodcut. Do you have any references for this specific woodcut being named Portrait of Otto Mueller? Thank you for your help! Knavesdied ( talk) 23:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Regardless of what Kirchner called it, we will call it by the usual usage in English per relevant sources. Ty 00:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Frankly my take is the spelling should remain as Otto Mueller... Modernist ( talk) 01:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Ty, that's the interesting thing. All the sources refer to the work as being titled Portrait of Otto Müller. I cannot find a single source that calls the work Portrait of Otto Mueller. So on the basis of 'per relevant sources' it should be called Portrait of Otto Müller. Can you give me a source for this work being referred to by the spelling 'Mueller'? Knavesdied ( talk) 10:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't know anything about it. I'm just saying we should follow the form used by the sources. Ty 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Look at the portrait and compare with the selfportrait by Otto Mueller and you know that Kirchner spelled his name wrong.-- GerardusS ( talk) 11:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC) reply

That doesn't matter. We should go by the name it is usually called in English by significant sources per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. That is for the title of the work, as opposed to describing the work. Ty 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC) reply

A google search for Otto Müller actually yields more results for Otto Mueller which strikes me as being that Otto Mueller is the correct spelling for us to use here... Modernist ( talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not disagreeing that the artist's name is Otto Mueller, or that is the correct spelling for his name. However, as Ty as written, and as per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, I have two significant sources in English giving the title of this specific work by Kirchner as Portrait of Otto Müller and no one has offered a significant source with any other title for this work. The sources are (1) Carey, Frances; Griffiths, Antony (1984) The Print in Germany, 1880-1933: The Age of Expressionism, ISBN  978-0-7141-1621-1 and (2) "Portrait of Otto Müller (1983,0416.3)", British Museum Collection Database (Retrieved 2010-06-05). I don't know why Kirchner decided to title his work that way, but until someone puts forward verifiable sources with an alternative title I am going to standardise the naming of this work with the verifiable sources I have access to. Many thanks to everyone for their viewpoints. Knavesdied ( talk) 09:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• There seems to be some confusion here; this is a non-issue. In German the umlaut character can be written "ue" or "ü" indifferently; this is not a difference of spelling but typography. In fact Getty prefer Müller, but it is pointless looking at sources for this. It seems a tad unlikely Kirchner actually fixed a title, doesn't it? That would have been a tad bourgeois, no? Johnbod ( talk) 10:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks Johnbod, I agree. I'm just going by the sources. And if it's good enough for Getty, good enough for the British Museum, and good enough for Carey and Griffiths, then it's good enought for me. Knavesdied ( talk) 17:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Modernist; re his right side in the image is in reality the left side of his face, in a mirror image, doesn't our right side stay right, the left side left? I take issue with this constantly in art history literature, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm all wrong. Shudder. Best, JNW ( talk) 15:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree - the ambiguity is clearly unproven and open to guesswork... Modernist ( talk) 15:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't understand. The Commons link deals with the specific series. APK whisper in my ear 14:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

2 reasons - first the commons link you added was blank, and the general Monet link has images that are usable, some of the more specific imagery from artbooks are not really viable IMO.. Modernist ( talk) 14:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The link isn't blank. See Commons:Category:Rouen Cathedral by Monet. My first edit was a typo, but my second corrected the link. APK whisper in my ear 14:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Good - well done, leave both links, and add the new images to the article... Modernist ( talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I have referred Nineteen Nightmares for personal attacks and incivility at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Pattern_of_Personal_Attacks_by_Nineteen_Nightmares. Since you have been involved in this matter in the past, I believe that it is appropriate for you to be made aware of this matter. Regards, GregJackP ( talk) 17:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

It's beyond anything I have ever seen before - an appalling spectacle... Modernist ( talk) 18:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I truly do not understand the behavior, and don't know any other way to address it. I know that not all editors are willing to sit around the campfire and sing folk songs, but this has been extremely puzzling. GregJackP ( talk) 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Seems crazy, administrators need to be consulted, I've never seen anything like this... Modernist ( talk) 19:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Please excuse my butting in, but I was curious about this and could not find any information about what had happened, even checking dispute resolution archives. I'm sorry if this person was ghastly, and may I ask where I can fid out what happened? If this is too nosy or painful, of course, then never mind. Artemis-Arethusa ( talk) 14:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC) reply

It's best to let it be... Modernist ( talk) 14:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

You've improved it a great deal. I shouldn't be too surprised that there are lots of important artists not on the list yet. When I started it I was pretty haphazard about researching and placement. Thanks so much for taking it up. Artemis-Arethusa ( talk) 14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Glad to help :)... Modernist ( talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC) reply

For the positive words on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Away for a few days on business, and just got back to town. Best wishes and keep up the great work, JNW ( talk) 23:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Welcome back, hopefully its over with... Modernist ( talk) 02:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply

You might find this discussion relevant: User talk:Benjamw#Possible connection to a cultural institution Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I've seen it, and removed the spamlinks... Modernist ( talk) 18:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I think I'll keep my trap shut here; discussions like this have not gone well for me in the recent past. Ceoil ( talk) 20:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I think its done, I added RS refs to whatever Tony was going on about. You might check em...I found a really cool magazine article from 1949, where 2 old guys were saying they knew Van Gogh when they were just little kids, - he gave them pennies if they could find birds nests, one guy said he offered him 3 drawings, but he said nah, I'd rather have the money... Modernist ( talk) 21:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

You are a safe pair of hands, Modernist. Ceoil ( talk) 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Guess I just got cross, or rather crossed up for awhile... Modernist ( talk) 21:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Did us proud, you did. Ceoil ( talk) 21:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Why do you believe that the image is PD-old? You are aware, aren't you, that images of 3D objects are copyrightable, regardless of the status of the image? Observe that the source for the image, http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualites/communiq/albanel/cesarles08.htm, carries a notice of "photo © : C.Chary/DRASSM" at the bottom. Of course the bust isn't copyrighted, but that's irrelevant here. Nyttend ( talk) 13:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

So if you modify a copyrighted image, you can release the modified image into the public domain? Please read derivative work — unless you can claim that modifications fall under fair use, you may not modify a copyrighted image without permission, and the resulting modification is still copyrighted by the holder of the original image's copyright. Nyttend ( talk) 13:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I objected because the image is replaceable. Why can't someone take a picture of it and release it freely? Nyttend ( talk) 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I can't because I live on the other side of the ocean, can you? I think the image should remain under the fair use rationale until such time that it can be replaced... Modernist ( talk) 13:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

So what? Someone on the other side of the ocean can replace it. Nyttend ( talk) 13:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Why not just keep it per WP:UCS, after all anything can happen....sometime... Modernist ( talk) 13:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Mondernist, Im purposly not cmting, for fear of a block if I spoke my mind. Ceoil ( talk) 09:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I understand, what an absurd state of hypocrisy and rule wonk... Modernist ( talk) 11:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Ta for the old links, I have a fondness for the blues that I picked up early, before I found Punk and it never left me. Here is some thing quite pleasant...might appeal to a New York minimalist like yourself [5]. Ceoil ( talk) 14:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Really good. Reminds me of something, can't quite place, thanks... Modernist ( talk) 14:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

This? Ceoil ( talk) 14:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

That was a great film, and a similar sound, but not what I was thinking... Modernist ( talk) 14:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Wow; I really like Marianne Faithfull, but hadn't come across that before. See what you make of [6]. Its spooky beyond belief. Ceoil ( talk) 15:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Creepy, I'll take the Basement Tapes anytime, although it's one of my least favorite Dylan albums... Modernist ( talk) 15:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hmm, then you and me are going to be falling out. Polly Harvy is very hot indeed, imo. Ceoil ( talk) 19:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Don't get me wrong, the chick is hot, the song is creepy... Modernist ( talk) 21:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Modernist, thanks for your contribution to the Basement. You clearly know this region. Please help us to improve the article, and I left a query. best Mick gold ( talk) 21:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Mick, thanks for your message I responded here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Basement Tapes/archive1... Modernist ( talk) 23:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply

As I never figured out how; would you mind archiving all of the Bacon talk page. Its all circular bullshit thats best left hidden and in the past. If I was to expand I don't want to get wrapped up in things I just dont care about. His nationality is what it is. What is the point of defining it. If there are hassels, I have both guns loaded. Ta. Ceoil ( talk) 12:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Done... Modernist ( talk) 12:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Nice surprise, thank you Tony... Modernist ( talk) 14:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

{{break))

We've both said our piece on him, but Moni2 has poked out a fairly stong work (there are some!), and this is a monatge of a wide variety of old sources - a number tie in with Velázquez, thus me here. I'm mentioning this as you were always extreamly sharp at making connections and tieing things together, and would be invaluable in an article like this. So.... In other news, all quite; no other news. Preoccupied by Dürer, but thinking of making a pass at Bacon. Ceoil ( talk) 01:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll check it out... Modernist ( talk) 04:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm disappointed that you removed my image about postal commemorations of Pablo Picasso. Both your last version and my own seem to me to work design-wise: why did you end up saying it "doesn't work"? SteveStrummer ( talk) 04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I didn't think the stamp really belonged there. I'll give it another shot... Modernist ( talk) 11:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Nice, it looks much better that way! I'm glad you decided to keep it! Thank you for your patient effort and precision. :) SteveStrummer ( talk) 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your work on Helen Frankenthaler‎~ Active Banana ( bananaphone 15:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

No problem... Modernist ( talk) 15:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

This is a link to Hirshhorn's own site which admits to having Mym Tuma a.k.a. Marilyn Thuma's sculptured painting's on display. I wrote Mym Tuma's wikipedia article and now they are claiming that it is an orphan article. I'm simply trying to link back to her article with verifiable information and sources to correct the problem. Hirshhorn Collection

I am still new at wikipedia, and this is my first talk back Please let me know if I did anything wrong. ( GiovanniVegaz ( talk) 11:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)) reply

You didn't do anything wrong, it's just that there are literally thousands of artists in the Hirshhorn collection and we cannot list everyone; consequently while your Hirshhorn collection link helps to establish the Tuma article's notability it does not establish her as a major artist in that museum collection... Modernist ( talk) 11:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

VA artist on TFA today, if you feel like turning your vandel swatter up to 11. Ceoil ( talk) 02:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll keep my eyes on the prize... Modernist ( talk) 02:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

No prizes on wiki, mate. In case you were expecting something in the post, it aint coming. Ceoil ( talk) 03:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I thought I'd stay up and watch the article, but the only people touching it are those rewriting it, so I guess I'll be off to bed. Thanks for watching (both of you) and Ceoil, thanks for the rewrites. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 03:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll be back in the am... Modernist ( talk) 04:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Ta, M. Ceoil ( talk) 04:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

a citation that should allow you to return the Jewish artist categories that you had placed at Jacob Epstein and that some wikibureaucrat felt compelled to remove. Do you mind putting them back? Or should I try and figure out what you'd done? Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 16:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'd prefer that you put them back.... Modernist ( talk) 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Been there, done that, but you might want to double check what I did because you-know-who certainly will. Carptrash ( talk) 16:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I hope it does in fact "work out" :). Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Congratulations, well done... Modernist ( talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Replied again. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Once again, thank you, I am very pleased that you added so much of the truth about Epstein being a Jewish man... Modernist ( talk) 04:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

You might like this [7]. Gets interesting at 0.47. You owe me 1 tune. Ceoil ( talk) 08:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Really great... Modernist ( talk) 11:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm struggling with Ezra - for some obvious reason. The difficulty of balancing the early poet with the later poison is a challenge. Awadewit will be reviewing the article - and I suspect bring to it her unique perspective. I'd be interested in any critical comments you'd have to make. Am not overly concerned with the prose at the moment - am overly concerned about walking the straight and narrow w/out showing judgment, etc. Whether I've managed to achieve that I can't tell, and a fresh pair of eyes would be welcome, in case you'd be interested. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 12:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Maybe later today, when I am back, I gotta leave soon... Modernist ( talk) 12:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Not immediately. I'm not in a rush at all. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 12:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to thank you for the support on the FAC. The article's getting better and I'm not unhappy to see it archived. At this point, though, I have to admit I'm pretty sick of Pound and I think a bit of his ugliness tends to rub off. I'm looking forward to getting back to improving the Hemingway articles. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 19:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I have enjoyed our somewhat brief collaborations; although my additions have been somewhat minimal, make no mistake I enjoy your very serious efforts to create quality articles about important modernist figures, and the notion of creating a better modernist template still is a future project for us. My own distaste for Pound is hard to conceal, but the article has definitely added high quality to the project and is a great plus to all of our efforts; as has your efforts on Hemingway been a great plus. Thank you for all of your hard work... Modernist ( talk) 19:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply

The modernist template is exactly the type of project I need at the moment. Not a lot of reseach, no writing, just plugging in and prettifying pages. Sounds good. Thanks so much for you kind words. They mean a lot. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 20:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Saw your comment on Truthkeeper88's talk page. Seems we have something in common, I'm also interested in the I Ching and think Wilhelm's version is the best.

Truce? Yworo ( talk) 23:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Its best to work together, truce... Modernist ( talk) 01:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Modernist, I placed a question on my talk page, but maybe you don't follow it anymore; if not, please forget this one. I have a question: If I want to translate an English article (I translated for example Richard Maurice Bucke), it has to be imported into the German Wikipedia in order to retain the edit history; how about the other way around? We have a special page to put the import request to, and some admin will do it later; the import will be put into my user space first, preferably, and later moved to the right place. What is your procedure? So far, I simply created a new article in the English Wikipedia and copied my translation to it at once (or in parts, like with Douglas Cooper) which didn't seem to be a big deal as the German version was essentially mine, so the edit history didn't tell that much anyway. Should I proceed to do so, or what would be the correct procedure? -- Nobrook ( talk) 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

"... has probably forgotten more than many will ever know about this place ..."

This is very sharp. I was thinking that this would actually make for a great userbox, if someone were into that kind of thing. Hope you're well. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

It's a tough spot - the line came from an old country song that Dylan and Johnny Cash recorded... Modernist ( talk) 17:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Butting in [8]. Not the tune, but fairly special. Ceoil ( talk) 06:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Those guys - the best.... Modernist ( talk) 12:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Here's the Johnny Cash version [9] - probably would be a cool infobox by the way... Modernist ( talk) 13:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I think Dylan out-cools Cash in all thoes clips and recordings. Cash was tough, but Dylan was one cold motherfucker way back then. Ceoil ( talk) 16:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Singing like a choirboy, not a cowboy for a change... Modernist ( talk) 16:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

He still is. Did you read his Cronicles; v intresting on Woodie Guthrie; I always found Guthrie distant, not well covered by biographers on this side of the water. Dylan, in his rambling way, brings him more alive than I've seen before. Ceoil ( talk) 17:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I read it - it was pretty good, apparrently he was livin' around the corner from here for a while in the beginning. Man, Denny and Drake - how sad, a bit like Buckley and Buckley... [10]... Modernist ( talk) 17:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

You know I always liked Tim Buckley, in fact I really like Tim, but Jeff not so much. So he covered Hallelujah? That song was long ago ruined by over exposure. Here is something really fine from the late 1970s [11]. Ceoil ( talk) 17:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree - I am liking Tim Buckley more and more and not so much Jeff beyond Hallelujah. Speaking of Leonard Cohen [12]... Modernist ( talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Leonard played in Dublin this year, and though i didn't go, thoes I know that did almost fainted. Apparently he has a lot of pesonal charsimia. Talking about Sandy Denny, their is a lot of ache in this voice [13]. She had a very promising early career, but burned too bright, too early. Then acholism and an unsually bitter press backlash. Same old story. Ceoil ( talk) 18:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Incoming. Ceoil ( talk) 06:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, I asked the German specialists about the reasons for their procedure; they had long discussions about it before and maintain that otherwise the risk of copyright infringement is high ( Ist dieses Verfahren sinnvoll?). The English Wikipedia has a similar practice: Wikipedia:Requests for page importation, although not well known. They fear that the English Wikipedia has a high risk of vulnerability due to hidden copyright violation by not importing the history. The discussion page, they argue, may get lost for some reason. I'm not smart enough to get involved here and will try the above mentioned system. -- Nobrook ( talk) 11:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I am not convinced that is the only way to proceed, as I recommended to you, however see how it works... Modernist ( talk) 12:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The best thing is to import via transwiki the whole article in German, including edit history (and I presume talk page), either to article space or use space (from where it can be moved into article space, when ready). Failing that, the minimum would be to note in the edit summary (and preferably also on the talk page) the fact that it has been copied from the original source on the German wiki, giving the URL of it there; if it's not overlong, the edit history can be copied and pasted on the talk page as here. [14]

A curious by-product of transwiki is that users from other wikis suddenly get a contributions history on the wiki where the article has been transferred to. See mine on the German wiki. [15]

I'm glad we now have an article on Douglas Cooper (art historian). Long overdue.

Ty 01:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I'm glad to have the Cooper article too. My edit history there is as an IP because apparently there is another modernist on that wiki, whereas I have 'almost' all the rest; although your edit history is very cool... Modernist ( talk) 02:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Maybe you could arrange something to deal with that like a user name on German wiki such as "Modernist on enwiki". It's not appropriate for editors' IPs to be revealed. Ty 02:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Done, now I'm there - Postmodernist... Modernist ( talk) 03:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't know if that will stop an IP being credited. You might need to make further enquiries to ensure that your edits here are credited to Postmodernist, if they get transwiki'd. Ty 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Yours is the last edit. Watchlisted. Ty 02:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Translation finished - would you please have a look and lend your helping hand?-- Nobrook ( talk) 09:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Great! Thanks!-- Nobrook ( talk) 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Good job!.. Modernist ( talk) 22:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

For you [16]. Hes very young, but supreamly talented. The recorded version is very expansive, but not on youtube yet. This version is ghostly. Recommended purchase. You owe me a tune....tap tap tap.... Ceoil ( talk) 07:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Very nice, thanks... Modernist ( talk) 12:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Have you ever liked Scott Walker, or is he just a UK thing? Ceoil ( talk) 13:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Don't know him... Modernist ( talk) 13:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

It takes a few listens to get this, but the drama, pomp; very phil spectorish [17]. If you give it time its just fantastic in a chanteuse way. I dont know if you like Brel, Gainsbourg. Ceoil ( talk) 14:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, that one takes time in a Sinatraesque way... Modernist ( talk) 14:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Who are you telling. Its art house x 1500. Listen to the pay off at 1.36 though, and tell me Spector ever matched that. It sound like the sky has been split open. Ceoil ( talk) 14:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Email with multiple seplling mistakes sent. Ceoil ( talk) 16:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

When you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at the recent edits I made to this article, then look at this message on my talk page, and tell me if you think my edits were excessive? I would appreciate it. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite _{The'FortyFive'} 14:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Frankly - I see nothing wrong with your edits. Yoko Ono and the other important Fluxus figures are still in the article; no longer in the list because repetition of their names is not necessary there. linking every time a name or word or a place turns up is unnecessary; and you simply removed those repetitive links; Ina Blom - needs her own article - Ken Friedman might write one perhaps and Owen Smith is the wrong fellow... Modernist ( talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I appreciate that! Thank you. --- RepublicanJacobite _{The'FortyFive'} 14:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply

No problem... Modernist ( talk) 14:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Dear Modernist,

Thanks for your response. I didn't include the Owen Smith you cited. I simply listed the name Owen Smith, the one who wrote the book listed in the bibliography. If the UK politician of the same name was linked, this has to be a mistake of some kind -- I did not do it. For the reasons I state below, I won't be writing an article on Owen Smith or anyone else for Wikipedia.

The problem with the artist list is that it doesn't reflect the membership of Fluxus, but only the leftovers. It also is not clear in the article when someone quoted or mentioned is an artist or a scholar. Mentions of the artists do not always discuss their work or contribution to Fluxus, but merely cite them in a passing quote.

If you and the others are convinced that you're doing it the appropriate Wikipedia way, I'll bow out. Two or three times, I've explained myself to Wikipedia editors that have a different view on these things. I started to make Wikipedia contributions to this article as a result of my involvement in a debate about Wikipedia that started in the New York Times. I got a letter from Jimmy Wales telling me why Wikipedia is good. Thought I'd give it a go.

One of the problems with Wikipedia for subject experts is the need to explain oneself repeatedly from people who come from different backgrounds and different discourse communities. Experienced Wikipedia editors achieve a certain kind of standing and rank with Wiki stars and awards for the number of articles and edits they've been involved in. It's impossible to tell who they are -- most use pseudonyms and few step up to say who they are or what they do for a day job. At the end of the day, the differences in style become so great that one simply can't keep up. While I accept your view, I disagree with it. But it is clear that I can't persuade you. While I appreciate the Wikipedia venture, I don't have the time to accumulate enough edits or contributions to rise in the editorial ranks. I've spoken in the past with subject field experts to ask why they don't contribute to polish the articles on which they have done serious research with strong publications in peer reviewed sources. A few people told me that the problem was that anyone could edit, change, or remove their contributions. The first two or three times one must explain the reasons for a contribution or an idea, it's OK. After a while, one feels foolish -- Wikipedia involves a great many people with opinions. Most contributors are anonymous. While many are well intentioned, there is no way to determine their subject expertise, nor to offer a proposition in terms that would make sense to scholars.

While I would not argue that the changes to my carefully developed contributions are vandalism, I would argue that the effects -- for me -- are the same. Many talk pages make a point of saying that the editors have a life and they'll answer when they can. Like the rest of you, I have other responsibilities and I don't want to allocate time to protect my contributions to Wikipedia. I've done my best to make a case. Since several Wikipedia editors seem to be voting against me, the majority wins and my career as a Wikipedian now comes to a close.

Kenfriedman0 ( talk) 20:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Ken Friedman reply

Just a note to say hello--been a while, and it's always good to see your fine contributions. Unlike Ceoil, I have a limited musical range for Youtube links, so you'll have to imagine a song of your choosing. JNW ( talk) 02:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi JNW - always nice to hear from you, no song required...

Not wanting to play up on a sterotype, but song for you Modernist [18] (forgive the tacky vid), and that I hope we are still friends. I'm VERY protective of friends. Ceoil ( talk) 00:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Modernist! It happens that I translated articles from English to German and elaborated on them and don't seem to feel inclined to translate my extensions back. See for example The Women of Algiers (still in the making) or Victor Ganz or Le Rêve (painting). Actually, it doesn't make that much sense for a non-native speaker to do translations, does it? Could we or any other person or group collaborate on these?-- Nobrook ( talk) 14:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) reply

This excellent editor knows both art and German: User:Lithoderm... Modernist ( talk) 15:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot! I contacted him.-- Nobrook ( talk) 16:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your persistence and well argued FU rationale. There is also the point that an artist's self-portrait is not necessarily something one should rely on as an objective portrayal. It is after all how the person sees themselves, useful but potentially misleading - and all the more useful if there is a photo for comparison. Ty 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Ciao. I'd like to receive your opinion about a recent edit war started at talk:Temple of Caesar. There's this new editor who's added a new version of the article, full of detailed informations but written in a very wikiamateur way (just as an example, writing words here and there in italics without reason, using "magazine style", overlong titles etc.). I wikified as possible his contain and so. However, now he continues to insist that tuff and tufa are the same thing, citing the sources he uses, despite Wikipedia article clearly states that this is a common mistake even in the most famous sources (especially if not geological ones). Let me know and thanks in advance. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 08:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Magog the Ogre ( talk) 11:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC) reply

After the excitement of our first nom, we are on the road again. Mick gold ( talk) 08:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Do you know anything about the provenance of the image that was added here? The editor who added it recently offered no explanation for its use, and I have never seen it before. Is this by a Surrealist artist? If not, how is it relevant? I would like to know what you think. --- RepublicanJacobite _{The'FortyFive'} 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Good call, I think it is unnecessary and irrelevant. It doesn't belong in an historical article. To address the feminist issue we would do well to add a Dorothea Tanning or a Leonora Carrington painting - both of whom are still living... Modernist ( talk) 18:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I very strongly agree. Do you have any specific ideas? --- RepublicanJacobite _{The'FortyFive'} 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

As an editor who has worked on Surrealist-related articles, I would like your input in this discussion, if you would not mind. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite _{The'FortyFive'} 17:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised you moved the article Bal du moulin de la Galette to Bal au moulin de la Galette, particularly since you moved it earlier the other way round. What has changed your mind to go against the Louvre musée d'Orsay description? -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 13:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

The link I found at Musée d'Orsay seemed conclusive considering the Musée d'Orsay, in Paris has the painting, although I think they are both correct as I saw both usages there; frankly it is confusing. As best as I can figure du means of and au means at - and I think at is more correct than of.. Modernist ( talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

see here: [pidLi and scroll to Renoir and click on the painting... Modernist ( talk) 17:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I made a mistake above: the description cited above (and in the article) is from the musée d'Orsay, not the Louvre. It uses "du". "Du" indicates either a possessive case or a partitive/indefinite article; "au" has a wide range of idiomatic uses: au contraire, au lait, au gratin, au fait, au naturel, au pair, aux [x] crayons, where it can mean not only "at", but also "with", "upon", "in". I find it impossible to determine whether "du moulin" or "au moulin" is more correct, and they probably are both correct, but among the various pages at the musée d'Orsay, this one seems the most authoritative to me. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 03:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah Michael, it's as clear as mud so to speak; and either way seems to work, although I am leaning to 'au'. At this point I am utterly ambivalent... Modernist ( talk) 03:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

The Mail art Wiki page that Vittore Baroni and myself have created is not primarily about Ray Johnson, it is about the vibrant cultural phenomenon that grew up following his example and also that of Fluxus (and earlier) artists. We do not, therefore, wish to move the Ray Johnson invitation to the top of the page.

We have certainly paid tribute to Ray Johnson but have been careful not to make the entry all about Ray; there is, of course, an existing Wiki page about Ray Johnson. We have tried to document the main developments in Mail Art since the 1970 Whitney show, and reflect the huge global movement that grew up after the Fluxus postal experiments of the 1960s.

The article's introduction gives an overview of Mail Art from the 1960s to the current migration of mailartists to the Internet, ending with the Kostelanetz quote which outlines how the movement evolved after 1970. The illustration I placed alongside this intro reflected this growth and emerging culture. To move Ray's invitation to the top, above the History section that refers to the 1970 Whitney show, does not fit the flow of the article. Ray's invitation should be placed at the beginning of the History where it was. The György Galantai work that has been moved out of its context, funtioned to introduce Mail Art's wholesale adoption of stamps and rubberstamps. Plus, Galantai's Artpool with its Buda Ray University is also a precursor to the History section.

We would like to keep the illustration-right layout. It appears that you have also deleted references to, and captions for, Mail Art illustrations for which permission is being sought, and several where permission has already been sent to Wikipedia by the artists and were awaiting restoration. These illustrations were carefully chosen to reflect the diversity of contemporary Mail Art, they are part of an ongoing process of confirming copyright clearance with Wiki. Keithbates51 ( talk) 11:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Whatever, try reading WP:OWN... Modernist ( talk) 11:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Understood Keithbates51 ( talk) 14:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you!! for you help.( MA3ARG ( talk) 00:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)) reply

I really like that song, her voice, the sentiment. There is real NY grit in this one [19]. See what you think and might take a few listens but worth it Ceoil ( talk) 00:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Really liked it; suits my mood right now, thanks... Modernist ( talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm finding very little on Smith, only a few tunes on youtube and she doesn't even have a wiki page....A voice like that should AR LEAST have a stub of some sort Ceoil ( talk) 08:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks. It had been vandalised and the copyright template removed immediately before the deletion tag was slapped on. I've restored {{ Non-free 2D art}}, which is more targeted than the general template. Ty 02:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Thay explains it; I thought it was odd that you would have not put the copyright tag there in the first place, I should've checked... Modernist ( talk) 02:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I added a reference to further improve the article. A third party source that verifies that monument exists. So why did you revert my contribution? FrosteaTheSnowman ( talk) 17:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Re add it, I don't think you did it correctly, you wiped out the heading Monuments... Modernist ( talk) 17:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Apologies! Best regards, FrosteaTheSnowman ( talk) 17:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply

No problem, good luck... Modernist ( talk) 17:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Now all he needs to do is explain why he calls himself an "admanistrator". ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I noticed your comment - I think you might just delete it yourself giving him a mild warning... Modernist ( talk) 18:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply

He claims he's not an "administrator" but an "admanistrator", whatever that's supposed to mean. If he doesn't address that question soon, I or someone will need to take some action - for his own protection, frankly. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Because 1957 is not all about Russian artists... Modernist ( talk) 22:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Agree with Modernist; the article as it stands includes numerous cultures, not just references to art in the United States. I do find your claim disingenuous: what you have done is 'overstack' articles with material relating only to your background, and to artists that you have written about and presumably represent; prior to Modernist's reversion, you had in essence co-opted the article on behalf of Leningrad artists [20]. Often your preferred source is your own publication. Per WP:SELFCITING, many of these additions rely only upon your say-so for their claims to prominence, and have been accepted thus far in a spirit of openness, as well as, one surmises, a dearth of scholarship on English Wikipedia regarding recent Russian art. JNW ( talk) 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC) reply

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan Last: 05/22/2010 This box: view •  talk •

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 16:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC) reply

then one good turn, etc [21]. JNW ( talk) 02:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply

and the legacy [22]... Modernist ( talk) 02:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for your cool headedness. My day started with cold coffee and a bagel with cream cheese that turned yellow and hard. Yuck! I agree that the article is coming along, but I'm not much of person for conflict, hence the constant fluctuations on my page these days. I'm thinking I'll go back to working on the Hemingway material - it needs a lot of work, and I seem to have become sidetracked. His writing is better than Pound's anyway. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 18:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I am glad to be around for you; please hang in there and know that you are appreciated... Modernist ( talk) 21:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Modernist -any chance of having another look now that I've attacked the article a bit? Grutness... wha? 00:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep improving it - it needs work... Modernist ( talk) 01:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review ( WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks •  Ling.Nut ( talk) 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I find it hard to believe, but that may be the first Wiki article on one of Modigliani's paintings. One small step. JNW ( talk) 03:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

It's really amazing how it begins to flesh out and cover the territory, good job by the way... Modernist ( talk) 03:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, one could start a series of articles on the nudes, and not mind a bit. But some of the portraits-- Soutine, Lipchitz-- merit coverage as well. And incidentally, every time I look you're doing great work. JNW ( talk) 03:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Soutine in particular is under-covered; we need to place some focus on him at some point, and upload some images too. Your new articles lately have been terrific... Modernist ( talk) 04:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

....gave it a good shot, making it to 95. He was tough on art outside his chosen arena--I recall his statement about not visiting the modern museums in NY because he didn't 'worship at those temples'-- yet was more given, I think, to creative abstraction in his painting than the many figurative artists who I find dogmatic, even evangelical. Just chattering. Best, JNW ( talk) 23:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I hated him when I was a kid - I was totally immersed in Abstract Expressionism....I forgave him after a while - it ain't easy doing what you believe in and following your inner light; fashion be damned...Kudos to him, 95 was quite a good run... Modernist ( talk) 23:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Funny--When I was a kid I didn't like his work, either, but coming from the other direction. I was literal-minded and found the satire too broad. When visiting him I had the nerve (obtuseness) to question an anatomical distortion in his drawing. I think it's good that he didn't listen to either of us. JNW ( talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

In relation to a comment you made the above article's talk page about the external links needing to be converted to references, I have to ask, why didn't you simply convert them yourself? The most involved user is obviously trying to improve the article but has no knowledge of WP policies or format. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 05:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your inquiry. Sometimes real-life concerns dictate what I can do with my time; as well as the simple fact of my unfamiliarity with the subject of that article. However I certainly hope that you have added the necessary referencing... Modernist ( talk) 12:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

What I did do yesterday however was first to wiki-welcome the author of the article; and I added a link to an easy reference guide for beginners - thinking that would be beneficial in the long run for the project - if that editor was to learn how to do his/her own referencing correctly. Then I added my comment for the need for correct referencing to the talk page and then I removed the orphan tag from the article and replaced it with a reference tag. The delete prod was added by someone else well after I was done there. I noticed that the author of the article responded to the delete prod after I left for the day. I see now that references have been added, good job... Modernist ( talk) 12:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your response. I absolutely understand RL time constraints. However, I do have distinct problems with editors who habitually tag without bothering to attempt improving the article themselves. It does not seem that you do that, so I'm sorry if my comment was offensive. Your other actions were all great. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 14:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

No problem, nice hearing from you; by the way - we agree - I don't like article taggers either... Modernist ( talk) 14:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, with regard to this reversion, you did not include an edit comment and the change made looks nicely sourced. As this user discussed my previous reversion for his change (on my talk page) and has now come back with a reliable source, I am unclear why you needed to blank the change compared to, say, fixing, revising or repositioning the well cited material. Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I am dubious about the source and the comment concerning this definition of postmodernism: artists and musicians of the 1950s who created what was later called post-modernism. It is a direct quote but the authors are suspect; I need to see better documentation of that, that is plain inaccurate BS, If you want to revert - feel free... Modernist ( talk) 12:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The citation was one I plucked out of the air on the contributor's behalf, with you being a well established editor I hesitate to revert until I look at it again properly (the full biographic entry can be read on Google Books) so I'll revisit after lunch and possibly dig out a more robust source in relation to his influence on gay culture or raise the matter for talk page discussion instead. Hopefully the contributor will not jump off the deep end to fight anti-gay phantoms before then. Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 12:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Sounds fine... Modernist ( talk) 12:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm ready to jump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdSikov ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

LOL -Be my guest... Modernist ( talk) 14:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

No need to be mean. I hold grudges. I may just go through all the Wikipedia entries on gay men and lesbians I can find and complain about their handling of sexuality. Do you really want to provoke a crusade? The fact is, the Johns entry obfuscated before I raised my voice; now it's direct. I'd say I did Wikipedia a favor. That business the other person wrote about "anti-gay phantoms" is thoroughly insulting, and I do in fact resent it. In any case, thank you for your work, and for making that entry much more direct about this world-famous artist's sexuality. It's clearly a major detail, and the earlier version skipped lightly over it as if it was something much more minor.-- EdSikov ( talk) 22:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Holding grudges does you no justice. I corrected an inaccurate inclusion and now it's more accurate and you might do well reading the WP:BLP guidelines because most people here are just trying to do the right thing... Modernist ( talk) 22:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply

We're on the same page. I did read the WP:BLP, and I don't see a problem with anything I wrote or did. I am grateful for your help and work, and I wish you nothing but the best - except that I wish you would correct the comma splice in your last sentence(s).-- EdSikov ( talk) 03:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

How's that - no comma - Hemingway style and I need to add that I wish you well also... Modernist ( talk) 04:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Trying to catch up with my watchlist that's gone wild b/c of the copyvios in the children's lit area. I noticed you're working on Wanda Gág. Do you know whether it's one of the articles that Susanne (or whatever name she used) worked on? If so, it should be added to the list. Also, I have a book with a chapter on Gág - so can swing by when I have a chance, if necessary. Still scrubbing Beatrix Potter related articles at the moment. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 20:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Did you see Gorecki died last week. These two tracks are always mixed up in my mind - [23] + [24]. Its all the same thing. Ceoil ( talk) 08:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Ty... Modernist ( talk) 22:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! I promise I will give it my best. Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

That was wrong of me. In contrast, you handled it very well. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply

lol, its ok... Modernist ( talk) 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply

STAY OFF MY PAGE... Modernist ( talk) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be ' Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying " WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 22:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC) reply

user:68.173.3.25 dropped by the List of works by Thomas Eakins and made three substantive changes today:

1. He changed the owner for the portrait of Charles P. Gruppe (G414) from Thomas Colville Fine Art LLC to David Dufour
2. He added a current owner for the portrait of Major Manuel Waldteufel (Hirschl and Adler Galleries)
3. He changed the "Untitled Portrait" to "Study for Old Man in Taking The Count"

I know for a fact that #3 is correct (I called Kathy Foster at the Philadelphia Museum of Art about 2 months ago to ask her about that painting -- I was going to make that change myself sooner or later.) And I knew the Thomas Colville ownership information for #1 was out of date but didn't have anything to replace it with. So I'm inclined to believe that all of these changes are correct.

But what I'm intensely curious about now is -- who is making these edits? Whoever did so must have *extremely* deep Eakins knowledge. The IP tracks back to New York. So my working theory is that the person making these edits is a collector -- possibly an employee of Hirschl and Adler Galleries or David Dufour. Raul654 ( talk) 04:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Interesting, Spanierman Galleries might also be on the list, I'll keep an eye on it... Modernist ( talk) 04:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC) reply

So I called David Dufour today and we had a long, productive chat. He was the one who made those edits. Mr. Dufour agreed to look over the Eakins list and let me know if there's any holes there he can help fill in, and was also nice enough to give me contact information for Douglass Pashall (an Eakins scholar with whom I've been meaning to talk). Raul654 ( talk) 21:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

That's a really interesting story; good call... Modernist ( talk) 22:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

What's really interesting is he told me he had seen the list months ago and really liked it, but didn't know who created it. Raul654 ( talk) 01:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Proof that our efforts here are world class... Modernist ( talk) 11:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply

On 12 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Art of the United Kingdom, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the art of the United Kingdom only dates from 1707 onwards? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project ( nominate) 18:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow thanks guys... Modernist ( talk) 23:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply

This might seem like a very stupid and basic question, but anyway....what direction is the light in Man Mocked by Two Women falling from. Nice work on UK art bty, fantastic expansion. Hope the build up to x-mass is going ok, not bad here, drove home this evening from a week in Dublin in heavy snow. Arrived but snowbound now. How bad! At least not stuck in bloody Dublin... Ceoil ( talk) 20:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply

It looks to me as though the light is coming from below and maybe a lantern on a table in front of them. Good to hear from you; I was worried about all the economic news coming out of Ireland. I know they've got you working overtime. And all that snow. It's cold over here, the winter has come on pretty fast, I'm painting in the cold, but it could be worse. Time to focus on x-mass yow, lots to do... Modernist ( talk) 20:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok thanks; I dont think my eye is good enough yet to be sure about these things. The economic news is bad yeah, and getting worse, the IMF came out heavy again today, lending banks in the UK tripled there forcasted losses on Irish lending - it would seem likely that the Irish banks are going to trigger admissions from other euro banks that they are concealing heavy losses, and well there will be a ripple effect. The trickle of info on the size of thoes losses, and the way they have let be known - its 4 billion, no 8b, no 16b, no 32b, no 92b and the tax payer has to cover it - has been pretty disgraceful from all sides; banks, goverment, euro, IMF, the lot. But as if our enonomy is unique. I doubt well still have the euro as a currency by the end of 2011, and thats a very, very bad prospect. But anyway, at least it christmass. Im surprised you sound surprised by cold in NY, I though that it gets v bitter every year over there. Ceoil ( talk) 21:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah the winter can be a bitch; but it started very suddenly and fairly early this year. We're all worrying over these strange times... Modernist ( talk) 22:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Ta for fixes on the auld dear. Ceoil ( talk) 00:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Modernist. I've created a table (currently in userspace here) with dimensions of a random selection of Maya stelae - i.e. those that I can easily find dimensions for. Some important archaeological sites are notably absent, some stelae lack width and thickness, and most don't mention if the measurement represents height above ground level or total height, including the buried portion. Given these reservations, do you think this table is ready to go into the article, or is best left out, perhaps with just a mention of a few stelae and their dimensions in text form? No source that I have has a general overview of stela dimensions, so I would basically be pulling them out of treatments of individual sites (or even treatments of individual monuments). I would greatly appreciate your opinion. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 19:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Simon, It seems to me that the sizes of stelae are fairly wide ranging. Your table indicates a wide selection - 35 feet, 20 feet, 16 feet all the way down to 2.4 feet. I suggest that you only include sizes of the individual monuments that are illustrated in the article with references; and a brief explanatory section concerning the enormous range of sizes, weight and scale that have been found... Modernist ( talk) 21:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks - I'll do that. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 21:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply

FYI, I've now dropped a table into the article. A few of the stelae mentioned in the text don't have dimensions available but most have at least their height. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 00:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

If this guy, Sam Collins (musician) were around today, and he were stuck in our milieu, he would probably be singing Wikipedia Blues.

I wish you the best too. May 2011 be a good one for you. Bus stop ( talk) 00:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

That's a very tastefully beautiful video. Thanks. Bus stop ( talk) 04:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks Modernist! Holiday cheer and best wishes for 2011. Ewulp ( talk) 07:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

And all the best. My Christmas Eve is set: I'll raise a glass (or two) to you. freshacconci talktalk 22:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Modernist, can I ask for a gallery related favour. I've been toying with the template you used for the disasters, but frankly the html/mark up is beyond me. The Black Paintings article is a mess, I'm probably going to completly rewrite, but the template I can't manage. Ceoil ( talk) 17:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Which one? How many images?... Modernist ( talk) 18:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

This one [25]. 14 images, in the order they are in in the Goya template. I'd put the english title first, with the Spanish name in italix, in brackets. The < br> is unweildly and makes the whole thing too large. Ceoil ( talk) 20:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks man. Looks a lot better and give much more flexibility - I can get across that the horizontal works are much larger than the verticle. Ceoil ( talk) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Glad to help... Modernist ( talk) 01:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

If you ever find yourself in Cork, you are entitled to, what is it now...around seven free pints of Guinness. Ceoil ( talk) 05:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Make that six free pints. Tough times. Ceoil ( talk) 06:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I've found this image that was a frontispiece of a Yeats work published in 1896, so should be okay to use. The only problem is that I don't know when the book was published in the US. Would it have to have been published in the US before 1923? And which tags do I use - PD- 1923-abroad or PD-1923? Image uploading always makes me hyperventilate, and then, poof, they disappear. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 21:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

If it was published prior to 1923 then it is ok; regardless of when it appeared in the US... Modernist ( talk) 21:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks .... then I'll stop trawling through the Library of Congress looking for publication dates. The PD-1923 tag is sufficient? Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 21:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, per [26]... Modernist ( talk) 21:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks Modernist, that's very helpful. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 22:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_contributors%27_help_page Why is it essential that readers see a picture of this person? J Milburn ( talk) 00:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Considering her identification as an Imagist poet, the inclusion of an image of HD would seem warranted; my thought is that the article would benefit from the addition of further images. JNW ( talk) 00:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

The inclusion of a free image would be fine, but we have much stricter requirements for the inclusion of non-free images. Non-free images must add significantly to articles, and it is not at all clear why it is essential that readers know what she looks like... J Milburn ( talk) 00:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Because the very name HD is intriguing, she has become very little known by the general public and everyone is curious to see what these people actually look like. With HD there is almost nothing else to go by... Modernist ( talk) 00:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

If people want to know more about her, there's the article on her. Are you really meaning to argue that people could not fully understand the concept of imagism without seeing a picture of HD? J Milburn ( talk) 00:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Conversely, if representations of the artists and writers who make up various movements are not essential, then the rationale for including any is dissolved. Such images do enrich the content. JNW ( talk) 00:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Her image helps, its not so cut and dry - she's somewhat bohemian. mannish yet feminine, sexy but bookish... Modernist ( talk) 00:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Now you're just describing how she looks. Surely, we could do the same with any portrait of any person related to the movement? That can't justify the inclusion of portraits... J Milburn ( talk) 00:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Excuse me JM but why not?.. Modernist ( talk) 00:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but to restate my point above, the logic to delete as non-essential would seem to extend to numerous portrait images, which would then remove a great deal of visual interest from many topics. Images of central personalities are appropriate; I'm surprised that there's an argument otherwise. JNW ( talk) 00:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Non-essential non-free content should not be used, whether it adds "a great deal of visual interest" or not. Free images can be added whereever you please for visual interest, but not so with non-free images. Modernist, the argument you used can't justify the inclusion of portraits because, as I said, it would apply to any portrait, meaning that we would be justified in using non-free portraits of any person related to the content of the article. If you do not feel that that is a problem, we're really singing from different books. J Milburn ( talk) 00:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

You are so wrong. You're simply mistaken. The particular image used is a rare picture of an important contributor to the movement. You have your opinion and you are plain wrong... Modernist ( talk) 00:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll rephrase, since I suspect "a great deal of visual interest" is being read as somehow a bit trivial: in instances such as this the interest is historical in nature. JNW ( talk) 00:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I was responding to the particular argument you used. You argued that, because we could possibly learn about her from her portrait/find her portrait interesting, we should use it. How does that not extend to every portrait of everyone ever? J Milburn ( talk) 00:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

And the fact that the interest happens to be "historical" doesn't change anything. The NFCC still apply to non-free images, no matter how interesting you or anyone else thinks that they are. J Milburn ( talk) 00:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

You're interpretation of image use belies the very purpose of building this encyclopedia which is above all educational and which includes imagery when it pertains to the educational value of the article as does the picture of HD as I explained to you above, which clearly differentiated her looks from just anyone as you imply but rather as a person who was involved in early modernist writing, against convention... Modernist ( talk) 01:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

(E.C.) I think it does make a difference, per non-free use rationale guideline, as a historically significant photo of a famous individual....being used for informational purposes. JNW (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You are quoting an example of an image which may possibly meet the criteria. The criteria themselves are the same for all non-free images. J Milburn ( talk) 01:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I am stepping out of this discussion now, as the issue is being handled by some other Wikipedians experienced in the area. I am available on my talk page, but I am no longer watching this page. J Milburn ( talk) 01:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

That's enough already, your interpretation of the criteria is different from many others including User:JNW, mine and User:SlimVirgin, and User:Truthkeeper88 so lets see how this [27] plays out... Modernist ( talk) 01:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Just wanted you to know about File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg that I can't put any more time or energy into fighting the image policy. I had two deleted yesterday with fair use rationales and the time I've spent on EP in uniform is more than I can justify. Obviously I'd like to see it stay in the article, but was willing to take it out when Elcobbola wanted it out - then it was put back - now it's being challenged again. I think until either the FUR is accepted or the photographer can be identified the image will continue to be challenged. TK88 ( talk) 16:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I know - welcome to wikipedia - we've been arguing with the image hunters since 2006... Modernist ( talk) 16:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Regarding this edit [28], I did try to clear the air earlier today, but clearly you didn't want to speak to me. Yes, you have a good article, but not one that's ready for FAC. Sorry to be upfront and honest, but my username pretty much describes who I am as a person. Moreover, I understand that you're angry with me because of Carole. I understand that I've done something that's "not done" on Wikipedia, but again couldn't see a way around keeping quiet. I would have helped clean the pages, I'm not really a bad person despite what people believe about me right now. At any rate, I've reverted all the edits I've made to VvG and the to family article. What I ask is that this doesn't affect your friendship with Ceoil. He probably shouldn't have asked me to help; I probably shouldn't have accepted. Certainly I shouldn't have reviewed the article or started to become invested in it. But I can fade away from here after SAR runs on Saturday and the rest of you can carry on. I apologize profusely for being involved and for upsetting Carole. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 23:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply

While I saw what you posted earlier I didn't respond because it is better to let it go, and because I am very busy in real life and because I had to go teach my class. I think you are way too worked up over all of this. The Van Gogh article is a very good article, personally I couldn't care less about FAC. I am basically disinterested in the entire process, although I have participated from time to time. I will continue to work on and improve the Van Gogh article because that's what I want to do. I don't want or need a gold star or applause. I have no interest in any of this drama either. My best advise to you is return the books, and go back to your expertise and your strength and do what makes you happy, for the best... Modernist ( talk) 02:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Just to be clear, telling me to go back to my strength is telling me I can't work on Van Gogh, which goes against the "anybody can edit" principle. I didn't start this, I didn't create pages with copyvio (and scrubbing them is also one of my strengths) and yeah I am really really upset. But I'll leave the art pages for the VA guys. Wouldn't want to overstep. Thanks for the advice. As for the drama, I didn't start it, and if bringing attention to editing problems is drama, then I do need to leave this project. Also, I didn't realize that I need to be a member of the VA group to post on talkpages. [29]. Furthermore, I spent a lot of time scrubbing the Van Gogh family articlce an then reverted myself because I felt bad about touching someone else's page. This, quite frankly is a problem. The portions of the page that I scrubbed has copy-vio which my reversion re-introduced. If you want those pages to be like that, that's your decision, but it's not something I'm comfortable with, and frankly it's not good for the project. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 11:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Art constantly amazes me, but is relevatory to learn than even by 1460, van der Weyden was producing commercialy motivated triptychs that were almost ‎pure abstraction, and more or less studies of geometry. Here is a nice tune, a stone classic though its a grower, so give it a few listens. Its from musicians of my geneation, but somehow each time I listen, I imagine a 19 year old Jim Morrison alike JNW with a big ass afro bopping away. Ceoil ( talk) 15:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Like em. Hey the roots of abstraction go back to the caves... Modernist ( talk) 21:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I always take cave art as literal, though I find megalithic monuments to be just perfect. My area of Cork is the riches area in europe with ancient stones and I'm besotted by them. [30]. If you ever care to visit Ireland, I'll give you a fairly good tour. Ceoil ( talk) 22:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

My son was in Ireland briefly enroute to Rome a couple of weeks ago. I would like to take that tour - don't count me out. Here's something great for you [31]... Modernist ( talk) 22:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Ah yeah, thats a fine tune from a amazing band, I have a big thing for them. Have you noticed the work on Dylan Mick gold and others are doing. Its very impressive, all the more so as one of thoes guys is a highly regarded and first rate music journalist as well as a documentary film maker of one of the most impressive series on art history to come out of Britian. Things like that make me happy to be on wiki. Tune with a very clever bassline. [32]. Ceoil ( talk) 23:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I saw Dylan's paintings the other day, no comment. I also saw the Jenny Saville show even less to say; but there are some of us here that give us reason to stay - although it is getting harder and harder - [33] but we do our best... Modernist ( talk) 23:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I dont think I'll ever get tired of muddy, he had such carisma, as does Winters. Here is a nice New York play on the girl/boy vocal swap thing of the early 60s; but with fucking LOUD guitars. I hear what you say re harder and harder, but there is a core of us here interested in content, and we work off each other and keep each other going. Ceoil ( talk) 23:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Bty, disappointed you didn't like Saville, I've never seen her work up close, but I like what ive seen, though she is so obviously derived from Bacon and Maggi Hambling. Ceoil ( talk) 23:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I have never seen Dylan's paintings except in reproduction—online. But it occurred to me just a day or so ago, just musing to myself, that people are sometimes or oftentimes noted for one thing. They may engage in another field, but not be noted for that endeavor. I forget what conclusion I reached, or more likely, what presupposition I was starting out with, but I guess it is simply that accomplishments in one area by creative people do not necessarily translate into proficiency in other areas.

I also see Francis Bacon (artist) in Saville's work. Bus stop ( talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Over fed rock stars believing their own bullshit is a notoriously dangerous field. Hubris. See Ronnie Wood's headache inducing chocolate box paintings and weap. Other notably shit painters include Paul McCarthy, Bowie, Justine Frischmann and Captain Beefheart. Ceoil ( talk) 00:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Bacon was a great painter, an innovator and had something to say about more than 1 or 2 things - She can paint - but her paintings are irrelevant, overdone, oversized, boringly and basically about 1 thing only and they are somewhat repulsive, the drawings too are overdone, too big in most cases, I think she's utterly overrated, Dylan on the other hand can paint too and he quotes Poussin, and Delacroix, and others but he doesn't handle his figurative imagery as well as he needs to - in terms of what he's doing... Modernist ( talk) 00:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I like her a lot, she says someting to me that I cant articulate in words but just know, and that to me is the mark of good art. But I appreciate the deritive and technical arguments, and she is one of the few YBAs I like. I like the Chapmans, though I think their skill level is nill, they are clever and funny and I enjoy them, but in a navel gazing cul de sack cartoonish insider way. Ceoil ( talk) 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I understand, and as I said - she can put the paint on. But from what I've seen she basically has nothing else to say beyond her outsized and somewhat grotesque females... Modernist ( talk) 00:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

But thats an important thing and vital viewpoint Modernist, she's commentiong on things we all think about, consumerism, the value of surface over substabce, and the pressure on women to look like the anorxic things in the weekly trash mags. The irony is thats shes quite the fox IRL, though gay. A la hambilgton, who is prob her closest influence. Bus stop have you noticed the backlash against Bacon in the last two/three years, which is fine as he is a very chliche ridden artist who has been quote mined to death. Ceoil ( talk) 00:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

As Dylan said - what else do you have to show me? The message has been delivered, she's entitled to paint as many of those pictures as can, and I'd rather look at a deKooning, a Rauschenberg, a Noland, a Pollock, a Bacon, a Joan Mitchell, and I can name probably several hundred more interesting artists. She's good at what she does though... Modernist ( talk) 00:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not knowledgeable or strongly opinionated about Francis Bacon. I have heard people rave about him, and I have wondered what they were seeing. I think I see El Greco in Francis Bacon (artist)'s work. This isn't that bad. By way of contrast we can consider this finely wrought gem. Bus stop ( talk) 00:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

In context in the 40s and 50s Bacon is both innovative and strong as well as drawing a strong parallel with the Bay Area painters. El Greco is on my short list of great, great painters. Manet, Goya, Picasso, Matisse, Pollock, Monet and about a half dozen others including El Greco... Modernist ( talk) 00:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

There is a lot of El Greco in Bacon's work, also Goya's black paintings, John Dekon's photographs, and a bunch of gimattaco (cant spell but you know who I mean). He aspired to Velaquez, which in hindsight was a bit lofty. But I think his series of screaming popes from the mid 50s are among the best examples of 20c art. 01:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like the Bay Area Figurative Movement. Do you mean Alberto Giacometti? Modernist—have you seen this? Bus stop ( talk) 01:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Note that our article on El Greco is a FA, to return to our origional coversation there is a reason to think this is not a waste of time. Ceoil ( talk) 01:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, Ceoil, onto other things - Bus Stop I do know the color field show and I knew and/or met all of those artists with the exception of Rothko and Louis... Modernist ( talk) 01:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Wow. I'm impressed. I think painting is the meat and potatoes of visual art, and of course these color field artists are painters. Bus stop ( talk) 01:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Why are you deleting my additions to the Mary Cassatt gallery? I'm not doing anything unethical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksk2875 ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Aside from the fact that you seem obsessed with the Walters Museum? No, your addition is fine, I'll re-add it... Modernist ( talk) 00:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm obsessed with American art and illustration. I simply want to add or enhance to this site ingeneral(as there is no sole proprietor). I am respectful and would hope that others wouldn't tamper with my work unless it is inaccurate or causing harm to other contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksk2875 ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Do your best, - American art is great... Modernist ( talk) 00:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply