Talk:Color field/Archive 1

Archive 1

Added Barnett Newman. Seemed ridiculous not to. --Bảo 21:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Relationship

Color Field is related to Suprematism, and Abstract Expressionism...

How is it related? -->>sparkit|TALK<< 00:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think a better question is how is not related? Color Field emerged from abstract expressionism, and the relationship between, say, Malevich and the color-field painters'works is quite obvious, don't you think? --Ggbroad 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

71.125.251.250 - Please be a little thoughtful in your edits. I would suggest that you check out several pages here, perhaps the pages Post-Painterly Abstraction, Clement Greenberg, Abstract expressionism and various others. I thought many of your edits were not as thoughtful as they might be, I've been working on this page for many many months. The Rothko image isn't really legally allowed here. The colorfield branch of Abstract expressionism were friends with Greenberg - Rothko, Gottlieb, Still, Newman all predating post painterly abstraction. If you want to make changes lets discuss it here, Thanks, Modernist 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To Moderisnist from 71.125.251.250 Greenburg curated a show called "post painterly abstraction" he first used the phrase in the avate gaurd and kitch. Post Painterly Abstraction is another way to describe color field because the manner of the painting ie the painterly quality is no longer important. You're thinking of post studio painting that developed after minimalism. I want to make a clear distinction between the goals of abstract expressionism and Color Field and try to understand color field painting as a distincly American art form. I spent time encorporating your ideas into my edit and do not appreciate your flat out deletion.

Clement Greenberg wrote his essay Avant-Garde and Kitsch in 1939. His exhibition Post-Painterly Abstraction was in 1964, during the mid-fifties he used the term to make a distinction within Abstract expressionism between Action painting championed by Harold Rosenberg and those painters like Newman, Gottlieb, Rothko, Still, and even Pollock who were more involved with the process then the act. Modernist 23:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images

The majority of non-free images used in this article are not discussed in-depth in the prose, and are thus primarily decorative. I appreciate the need for images of iconic works, but if they do not even warrant discussion in the text, they can hardly be considered iconic. One or two images would almost certainly suffice here (unless the article was significantly expanded) and so I do not feel there is a need for this many images. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a disgraceful assault and you know it...Modernist (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Every deleted image had a do not delete tag, and a discussion was called for not unilateral action by Phil Knight..I think he should be recalled..Modernist (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with PhilKnight, but rather the images on this article. If you believe that PhilKnight has behaved in an inappropriate manner, I reccomend you raise the issue with him on his talk page. However, please note that the tags you used are non-binding- just because they are there, does not mean that the images cannot be deleted. If PhilKnight has acted inappropriately, it is because the images should have been kept, not because they were tagged. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The images should have been kept..I'm considering counting to 1000 before adding anything to that particular talk page...Modernist (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's probably the best bet. Getting angry and saying something you will later regret will not help matters. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am confused about the statement that the images aren't discussed in the text, as the article looked like this[1] when that statement was made. There seems to be quite ample text directly below each image to which it relates. Ty 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should organize a request for comment to get some more outside views. PhilKnight (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is ample text in the article...Modernist (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Images should be included because they are discussed, not discussed because they are included. If discussion of these images cannot be promoted outside of a caption, are they truly that necessary to the article? Non-free images should be used to complement the prose of the article and demonstrate something that the prose cannot- they should not stand alone, there for reasons independent of the prose. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently every single image is discussed in the body of text in the article, with mention of the artist, the oeuvre, and the specific work illustrated..in addition the captions now also include text explaining each work..Admittedly there are a lot of images here.Possibly some can be eliminated, however I will not agree to a wholesale removal. This is a valid use of current works or rather - recent works of art that are needed to provide meaning and relevance to the article..Modernist (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Every image is "discussed" in the title of the article. Each image is ostensibly a "definition" of the article. The article is, after all, about a mode of painting. The words, of necessity, follow the imagery -- not the other way around. There is in theory no limit on the number of images that can support the subject of an article such as this. As long as the image is a bona fide exemplar of a "color field" painting, then in theory the image "belongs" in the article. Practical considerations may limit the number to those either mentioned in the body of the article, or deemed especially typical or a particularly outstanding example of the subject matter at hand. But I think it should not be necessary that a painting be referred to in an article such as this to justify its inclusion. The article is, after all, about something of an entirely visual nature. Further justification, it seems to me, is besides the point. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That completely fails to acknowledge wikipedia FU policy stated in WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, so is a redundant argument. It is necessary to reduce FU images to a minimum and for each to be individually justified for inclusion. Ty 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It would unecessarily complicate matters at this point to stage an RFC. The first thing is to see what can be resolved here and what sticking points remain: then an RFC would be useful. Of course the images can be discussed outside of a "caption": the text could simply be put into the main body of the article and the images laid in that text in a very difficult way that would make it a lot harder for the reader to locate the text with the image. This is simply a different way of organisation. Where the text goes is surely not the crucial point. What matters is whether the text is informative and whether it needs an image to give the proper understanding of it. If you think any of the text accompanying the image is superflous and just "window dressing", then please give an example, so that it can be examined properly. The text seems to me to provide crucial information about the development of the genre and the position and relationships of major figures. This kind of appraisal of the article is the only thing that is going to make sense of applying FU policies. Otherwise it becomes random and destructive based on some kind of rote application. Ty 17:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As a starting point it would be helpful if Modernist could see where any images are not essential, because, for example, their approach to the genre is similar to work by another artist, and for J Milburn and PhilKnight to point to images which they consider are necessary to give the reader a proper understanding. By coming in from either end, we can establish the ground in the middle which remains to be resolved. Ty 18:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, to answer your question, the images in the gallery are, in my humble opinion, not compliant with the non-free policy. PhilKnight (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about exactly why they are not, as there is critical text, which the image undoubtedly gives a greater understanding to. On this basis, they would seem to be justified. Ty 18:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment to Bus Stop accurately explains the situation. The non-free policy doesn't reduce to saying there must be enough text to support an image. As you have correctly said: it is necessary to reduce FU images to a minimum. PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a minimum that will still do justice to the subject. What I still don't understand is your rationale for saying that none of the images in the gallery are justified. They represent major proponents of the genre each of which has a different application of it. To just retain one or two images would create the highly misleading impression that these images sum up the subject, which can only be understood by seeing the variety of approaches to it. That is a rationale for keeping several (I am not saying all) of the images. What is your rationale against that? If you think that less images will do the job properly, please specify which ones should be retained and why you have chosen them, also how they cover the ground of the ones not needed. Without that justification, to just say "there are too many" is meaningless. Ty 01:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed four images, although I agree that the nuance and meaning of the subject is a little diluted with less images..I do not understand the pronouncements offered by Phil Knight, here and elsewhere; articulate explanation of his position vis a vis the art, and clear constructive argument vis a vis the meaning of the articles and his ideas about changing them would be appreciated. Modernist (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all- Tyrenius, thank you for your wise, logical words, PhilKnight, thank you for your appeal to policy, and Modernist, thank you for removing some of the superfluous images- I think everyone is bringing something that is absolutely required to this discussion. Basically, my thoughts after reading recent comments are- if the images genuinely do "represent major proponents of the genre" (and I'm happy to defer to your superior knowledge here- my knowledge of the history of art extends to winning pub quizzes and backing up my arguments in General Studies lessons) then why are the subgenres not discussed in the prose of the article? Our key aim should be to provide neutral, informative descriptions, backed up by imagery where necessary. If there truly are different elements of the genre, and, as a fan of obscure musiscal genres, I can certainly respect the idea that there can be differing styles within subgenres, then why are they not discussed within the prose? J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is very useful and the kind of dialogue which I hoped could be generated to see where FU images are justified, even if multiple within an article. I think the problem with a lot of the visual art articles is that the whole field was sadly lacking to start with. There are hardly any editors working in certain areas, e.g. modern/contemporary US art, where Modernist has been the main contributor. He is acting from his extensive knowledge of the subject, and therefore adding the essentials that he knows should be there as quickly as possible to plug gaping wholes, but leaving a lot of the supportive material to be developed in due course. He knows the subject and can pinpoint the images that define it. This has taken a lot of work, and the proper development of this with full text will take many times that amount of work. It does however need to be done, and the best outcome is that these talks will provide the prompt for it and also indicate the nature of it.

The different developments of color field are sketched in, e.g. in the paragraph beginning "Having seen Jackson Pollock's 1951 paintings of thinned black oil paint stained into raw canvas; Helen Frankenthaler began to produce stain paintings", which then influenced Morris Louis and Kenneth Noland etc. Strengthening and enlarging this narrative would help a lot, possibly with sub-sections for each stage.

It would be helpful to start defining parameters which merit an FU image. Here are some initial suggestions:

1. An image which shows a significant or key link in the development of the genre.

2. An image which shows a particular expression of the genre. This should be restricted to the most notable exponent of that mode.

3. It would normally be expected that these aspects would be sigificant enough to be the main part of a (sub)section, which would usually contain a maximum of one image.

I am coming round to the conclusion that it would be desirable to merge the text of the "gallery" section into the main article and likewise the images, possibly dropping one or two on the way - Jack Bush is not a name I recognise in the same league as the others? The organisation which the gallery provides could be substituted by the organisation of sections.

Ty 01:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I completly agree with your idea of merging the description in the captions with the prose, and I do feel that the gallery format is probably not appropriate for non-free images anyway. If a style is discussed at length, and we have a source clearly linking a particular work as a single, particular example epitomising that style (especially if it was the first work in that style, or perhaps the one that popularised it) then it is justified- as I can see a discussion of a style which one work epitomises (though a key point to remember is the sourced link, and an appraisal of that work specifically) as enough to warrant the use of a non-free image. If, hypothetically, there was an extensive discussion of five or six subgenres of the colour field style, I can see myself having no opposition to key examples spread across the article. The key differentiation is the way that this article appears to an outsider- it is currently "[definition, history and explanation of colour field] EXAMPLE EXAMPLE EXAMPLE". As I said before, it is important that the prose is the main part of the article, and that the images are there simply to complement and illustrate what is said, in such a way that the fewest images are used. J Milburn (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in accord that much of what has been said here is useful. Most of the text - was hastily put together - and can be made to read more clearly and should be made to be more explanatory. I can produce an easier read than it now is..sub genres such as The Washington Color School, or the Color Field - Abstract Expressionists vs. the Color Field - Color Field painters can be more clearly explained and written about in context and I will be glad to do it. J Milburn - thank you for working with me..I appreciate the banter and the prodding, because I have a sense that something creative can be the result..which is our goal here. Thanks to Tyrenius for everything he has said. Jack Bush was Canada's leading Color Field painter.[2] He was never as widely known as Kenneth Noland, Morris Louis or Jules Olitski but he merits his place. I can reorganize the text over a few days; or depending on what I need to do in real time, maybe in a few hours..or tomorrow, over the next few days I'll work on this stuff...As the prose straightens out I can either lessen captions or eliminate them, and perhaps redistribute some more of the images..Modernist (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Article structure

In view of the above, it would be advantageous to devise an article structure of (sub)sections, which could be be something like origin, influences/teachers, then the sub genres, such as large flat areas, stripes, painterly application or whatever, then subsequent development. That's just a stimulus, not at all definitive, as I'm not that up on the subject. Ty 04:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am thinking that it needs to get straightened out..I appreciate that and I'll see what I can develop in the next day or so...Modernist (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

under construction

The article and text are under construction...Modernist (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Put {{underconstruction}} on the article page? Ty 23:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

sources

I am asking for inline sources for every statement of opinion, including every statement about influence, and for every artist asserted to be related to this school. I shall remove all uncited opinion. If the source is a book, please include page numbers. DGG (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To act as you've specified would be potentially very destructive, unless you have good reason to suspect that certain statements are erroneous. Discussion of specific statements in the first instance would be the best way forward. For example:

Barnett Newman is considered one of the major figures in abstract expressionism and one of the foremost of the color field painters. Newman's mature work is characterised by areas of color pure and flat separated by thin vertical lines, or "zips" as Newman called them. Newman himself thought that he reached his fully mature style with the Onement series (from 1948) and seen here.[7]

This has one reference which is certainly for the last sentence, but may be for the whole paragraph. However, even if the first two sentences were not referenced, they should not be removed, as this is universally accepted in the art world and a basic fact about Newman. Although Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed is still in the discussion stage, it makes sense: "Subject-specific common knowledge – Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions." Per Wikipedia:Cite#Unsourced_material: "If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." Could you please provide some examples of statements that you have significant doubts about. Ty 04:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What I first asking for is documentation of every statement that someone is associated with this movement, in a RS for each individual person. If they are affiliated with more than one school, I ask for evidence that they are primarily associated with this, or else that the wording make it clear I'm asking this way instead of putting in the dozens or so cite tags, because it's less disruptive. I ask this because i saw a long list of claimed associated people, and that really does need some evidence.. I did not mean to imply acting precipitately-- Of course you have a full opportunity to do this carefully. Additionally, remember that in particular a statement that someone "thought' in a certain way really needs firm evidence, more so than a statement of fact about where he worked and what he produced and similar basics. I doubt that any critical judgement in the arts is uncontroverted. "Universally known in the art world" is not documentation. If it is "universally known," you will easily be able to find a reference for it. I would accept as a universally known statement that DaVinci was a famous painter, but it can still be documented. (it was that sort of statement which the rule refers to) I can only judge by myself & I do not think this school is so well known to the general public that anything at all can be assumed about it. I would be glad to be enlightened, which is why I ask for references. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform the reader, and that includes informing him about where evidence is to be found and how strong the evidence is. DGG (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Color Field is a major 20th century art movement. The article contains a wealth of insightful and accurate information, as far as I can tell. It's mostly been contributed by Modernist, who is one of the best Visual Arts editors with participation in 7 FAs to date. He is particularly knowledgeable in this area, so I don't have any significant concern about the content as such. Obviously thorough referencing is desirable and the goal to work towards, but it already has 43 refs. If there are any particular passages which you have reservations about, then it would be helpful to point to them in the first instance. This is not at all my field (excuse the pun) and I won't be hunting down refs, but I am concerned that material doesn't suddenly vanish en masse. There are very few editors available to attend to Visual Arts articles, and thorough referencing takes a lot of time, which I suggest needs to be allowed. Maybe some {{fact}} tags would point the way here. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts is a good place to post over relevant concerns to bring to more editors' attention. Ty 02:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I find DGGs 'request' overly aggressive (in both tone and substance), random and uninformed. What prompted this? Is he hitting random pages and showing up throwing demands around, implying the incumbent editors dont know what they are doing. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is only appropriate that DGG persistently wants to keep the wikipedia standard at a level that consistently meets its mission. To be worth including in the encyclopedia a subject must be sufficiently notable and that notability must be verifiable through references to reliable sources. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

No problem with that, but it would be a good idea to target any specific passages which are considered problematic, so editors can address them. I presume you're not challenging the notability of the article subject per se, namely Color Field, for which WP:N applies, but rather elements within it (see WP:NNC). Ty 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was over-aggressive, and I apologize for that. But I do work here also with similar problems in other fields of study, where various people are asserted to be associated with something, and it is not unknown that some have only a minor connection, or no provable connection at all. This normally been due to honest enthusiasm, but can be very difficult to resolve, since we have no binding way of ruling on content. I can perfectly understand that an artist might in his career be part of different movements, but also that different movements might claim a particularly eminent artist as being chiefly associated with them. Taking one name from the list, I notice that this article makes a major case for Richard Diebenkorn having a very significant role here, but the article on him merely mentions it in passing. Now, this isn't my subject, though I do recall seeing his paintings, and presumably picked his name because it was familiar to me, though I thought I was going at random. I do not think this sort of problem is only present in this article, but rather widely through many of the art subjects. I'm also aware that the question of whether someone is primarily an A or a B can be a contentious matter of academic debate for a very long time in all subjects dealing with the literature and music as well at visual arts. Similar problems come up with other sorts of lists also, and my general view is that the placement must be justified by the article on the person. (I also know that many other reference works often accept some contradiction between articles in such matters, but in good editing this is resolved in some manner or at least explained and cross-referenced). I'm not a specialist, but I don't think I'm an ignoramus. DGG (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for easing up a bit here. The main issue then would seem to be that rigorous justification and referencing is needed for artist inclusion. Accompanying this, I suggest, should be qualifications or maybe explanations. I've never thought of Matisse, for example, as a Color Field painter, but I may be wrong here. I can see the point, but I'd like to have it validated and quite possibly shown in what aspects he differed from the typically named major Color Field painters. I agree with your points, apart from the justification to be found in the article on the person. This would be ideal, if the article were of the appropriate standard, but is not always feasible, as many articles on artists are woefully deficient, and I have observed at times fundamental omissions. The Creative Arts have been acknowledged for some time as lagging behind, and there is a low ratio of editors to subjects. Ty 00:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Creating list of Color Field artists

There is no reference as to why Henri Matisse or Joan Miro or Howard Mehring or any of the artists listed under Color Field artists belong to the list. Consequently there is no apparent reason given why Mary Pinchot Meyer should be deleted from the list. This underlines the importance of DGG's request that: documentation of every statement that someone is associated with this movement....and for every artist asserted to be related to this school is appropriate. (Salmon1 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Ref 4, De Antonio, Emile. Painters Painting, a Candid History of The Modern Art Scene 1940-1970. Abbeville Press, 1984. 44, 61-63, 65, 68-69. ISBN 0-89659-418-1 is given for Matisse's influence. I would have thought it better to separate out those artists normally put under Color Field (some here) from those like Matisse, who are more commonly seen as influences or precedents, which go back some way: "In an article published by ARTnews in February 1961, Robert Rosenblum set out a genealogy tracing Colour Field Painting back through J M W Turner to Friedrich’s Monk by the Sea."[3] It is not true that here are no references for "any of the artists listed under Colour Field". For a start, current ref 8[4] substantiates a number of them. You might point out any particular artists that you think need a reference where one is not already given in the main text. Ty 04:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Grace Hartigan

Shouldn't Grace Hartigan be including in the list of artists? 96.234.199.88 (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question, however she was more related to the group of Abstract expressionists who created figurative abstractions. While she was a colleague of some of the color field artists like Helen Frankenthaler and Robert Goodnough (who might be included here if there was an article); she was not a color field painter...Modernist (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaced image by Ronnie Landfield with image by John Seery

Images in Wikipedia Commons for Ronnie Landfield: [5] Due to the repetitive use of several images in different articles I replaced [6] with John Seery’s [7] which was used in the article: John Seery.(Salmon1 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

Repetitious imagery appears on many articles throughout the visual arts, as do most of the imagery in this article...Modernist (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Motherwell appears in 7 articles, the Still in 6 articles, the Noland in 2 articles, the red Newman in 8 articles, the Frankenthaler in 7 articles, the Hofmann in 7 articles, the Louis in 6 articles, the Gene Davis in 6 articles, the Bush in 4 articles, the Stella in 6 articles, the blue Newman in 5 articles, the Landfield in 2 articles, and the Diebenkorn appears in 2 articles...Modernist (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact I will add the John Seery...Modernist (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't remove any imagery unless you achieve some rational consensus for such a move...Modernist (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The concern is that there is an agenda here, not merely a rearrangement of images. The edit summary [8] is "wiki editing", when it really involves the continued removal of works by a particular artist. JNW (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask Salmon1 to please not edit war--it's fairly clear that you'd like to remove images of Ronnie Landfield's paintings. JNW (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My comment: I have enough information taken from Wikipedia to stand by the necessity to reduce "overly abundant links and references." The adherence to the rules of WP:NPOV is required of every one. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

Including you, even you must stand by those rules including these WP:NPA, WP:HA...Modernist (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My mouse is worthless tonight.... filing an edit war report with all the diffs just wasn't going to happen, but yes, images by one artist are being marked for omission. This edit suggests what's at play long-term [9]; assuming that this complaint is relevant, accusations of socking and meatpuppetry are unfortunate, and off base. The contributions of an art historian are welcome, but neutrality is compromised by waging war on one artist. JNW (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

[10]; [11]; [12] Please follow the editing details. (Salmon1 (talk))

Reversion can only occur by the involvement of the tool to revert, which I do not have. I thought that by correcting possible editing error I would be able to conclude my editing since I was running into difficulties. I did not realize that someone was reverting me. (Salmon1 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

Lets be clear - You are edit warring. I added a template and you removed it. You have an agenda and you attack my edits, the articles I work on and things that fit only this - WP:IDON'TLIKE according to you; a lot. So lets deal with it - how about you stay far away from me and the articles that I contribute to, from now on, and stop your personal attacks and your bullying, and your harassment...Modernist (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The fight for sustaining Ronnie Landfield's image and preventing its replacement with John Seery's image may require a look into WP:NPOV when providing WP:BLP. They both were in the same show:[13]. Both articles were edited by the same editor, Modernist although not to the same extent. The major difference is the number of images provided and their use in further editing. (Salmon1 (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

The issue of sustaining Ronnie Landfield's image [14] and preventing its replacement with John Seery's image [15] can be important when providing major articles of art history. The difference is the over abundance of images used by Modernist for Ronnie Landfield [16] as compared to John Seery [17]. The question remains, what is the relation of Modernist to Ronnie Landfield. There is a danger of bias that should be prevented at any cost when it comes to providing information to the general public. (Salmon1 (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

I see both images are in the article now—in fact, when I last looked the Seery image was there twice. The problem with using the latter is that it hasn't been released, and I don't think a fair-use claim would apply here. There is also no fair-use rationale on the image page for its use here. Salmon, if you want to add Seery's work to more than just the article about him, perhaps you could write to him and ask whether he's willing to release that image, or some other. I've e-mailed you, and perhaps we can discuss how best to do that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not put Seery's image twice into the article, Color field. I had great difficulty to replace Landfield's image with Seery's image but I succeeded at the end. Since the problem involves the actions of Modernist, we may need to allow him to express his vision of a solution. (Salmon1 (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

What I make of this and previous removals of Landfield's work--though no one can fault the usage of images by Marden, Diebenkorn, or Seery in articles on modernism -- is that it's a continuation of a really long term conflict that has not previously been resolved to Salmon1's satisfaction. In that context, these actions appear to be not merely about arrangement of images, but a resumption of disagreements. I've provided the link earlier in this discussion to a post left for Jimbo Wales, because it includes broad and spurious accusations, including that claiming a sockpuppet administrator--I take it that this referred to User:Tyrenius-- and claims that edits with which Salmon1 disagrees are not based on reliable sources. Given the duration and tone of this, I wonder if this is the right page to resolve this. JNW (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Both sides have a WP:COI in this and the matters that are clearly related to it, and ought really to be very cautious about editing on it themselves, still less edit-warring. JNW knows the area better than I do, and I will support his judgement and edits. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. Before we go all 'administrators noticeboard' on this, I have some suggestions, simple stuff at that. (Disclosure, and no surprise, is that I'm a long term Wiki friend with Modernist--nonetheless, I'm trying to find neutral ground here). Both principals here are contributors of value, and it would be vastly preferable to allow each to continue editing articles on subjects in which they are knowledgeable. However, self-referencing, be it of images or publications, is problematic, as is the possibility (cringe) of you policing one another. The relationship is so antagonistic that if there are specific concerns regarding edits by one another that you feel need to be addressed, I'd strongly suggest taking them to the visual arts talk page first, so others can vet them for neutrality. Otherwise, it appears best if you keep a respectful distance. JNW (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to respond to JNW’s following statement: :”However, self-referencing, be it of images or publications, is problematic.” I agree with you entirely. There is special attention given to accuracy and impartiality. All the books have equal format: 88 artists presented in 2 books and 58 artists in one book in alphabetical order: *1 Page artist’s statement with reference and © to each given statement by the artist. This guaranties the artist’s point of view rather then a critical point of view. *2 full pages 12 x 9 inches of images by each artist with accurate description including ©; *1 page equal-format biographies. Biographies are public domain. No museum and/or public collections are listed for any of the presented artists. All the three books were "Highly recommended" by CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. One of the books: won a gold medal, OUTSTANDING ACADEMIC TITLE ~CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, July/August 2003. Although I am the co-owner of the publishing company, the publications are accurate references on the artists by the artists. There is an added inspiration at the beginning of each book that serves as the directive element for the choice of artists presented. The inspiration is always my choice. There was a lengthy deliberation about the above referred books. It was concluded and I was notified that it is appropriate to use the books as reference in Wikipedia articles with proper page citation. No article exists about me in Wikipedia. The existence of the books is presented on my user:page. (Salmon1 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

As far as I can tell your credibility as a scholar is not in question. Other concerns have been noted above. JNW (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with JNW 3 posts above and just above. Again I'm a long term friend of Modernist, but I cant see this resolving itself without a tactic agreement to disengage both from each other and related pages. Ceoil 01:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Protected

This page is fully protected for one week due to the report at WP:AN3#User:Salmon1 reported by User:Modernist (Result: Article protected, editors warned). If you see something that needs fixing during that period, leave an {{editprotect}} template below with a description of the change that you recommend. Any controversial change should get consensus first. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

Currently the image of a John Seery painting is used twice, apparently in error. Requesting that the single image be removed, per discussion here [18]. Thanks, JNW (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, easy and uncontroversial fix. Done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You the man. Ceoil 06:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)