Talk:Powder painting

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim boles (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm having difficulty with the Wikipedia sets of requirements. This article is simply a statement of a process and list some of the attributes and benefits of the process for someone who may want to consider attempting a 'powder painting'.

I can reference other artists who do related work, and I can put a stronger reference to the Bullseye glass company who sponsors experimental works of this nature. By sponsor, I mean they have related documentation on their web site of similar processes, and the promote efforts to expand the artistic use of glass in new ways.

So, I guess I'm not really sure where to go from here?

Part of the problem is Wikipedia is not intended to be a how to guide. Although the process may be well used, important, accepted, etc., the article as it is currently written is not really encyclopedic. If you were to rewrite it so that it focuses on why this is an important process or how it is the basis of an important artist's work, it would establish Notability. Good luck and if I can be of help, please let me know. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Jim, at WP:GLASS we are very interested in new artistic techinques that may be used at present, but which are still missing in Wikipedia. Simply take your time and address the issues raised by User:Ttonyb1; it should not be a problem. I also removed your name from the article because it never looks good to mention the own name in the first place, and it may lead to an article that is personal, not general and encyclopedic. Otherwise, I left notes on the discussion pages from you and of WP:GLASS. --Afluegel (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see everyone's point. I guess I'm not willing to rewrite it though. It's value is that it expands a glass artist's knowledge and vocabulary and helps in bridging the historic gap between glass as craft and glass as art. I guess I really don't have the desire to state how it fits historically (encyclopedically)into the context of glass and glass art/craft. I'm not an art historian and don't want to pretend to be.

From my point of view the this article is being wrongly or unevenly judged. Just look at the article on Fritography. This technique is along the same lines, but takes this style of working with glass to new levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim boles (talk • contribs) 04:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity you are unwilling to rewrite the article to incorporate the steps and move away from step-by-step how to guide. I have added a prod tag stating the article leans toward a how to step-by-step process; however, if you remove the step-by-step section, it should survive. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be very difficult to re-formulate the article so it does not appear like a "step-by-step how to guide". If all the bullets would be converted to a paragraph roughly explaining the technique, it might be already fine, I think. The bullets are not in a consecutive order, they are partially just a list of facts. In my opinion, co-operation with a few compromises is better in most cases than thinking that one is already perfect. -- Afluegel (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if I get time, I'll start the process. We have a bit of time until the Prod runs out. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the prod, as the article just needs some editing per above - it is more why to than how to. The PP category should be deleted though. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the suggested changes. It is as stated not a how-to but a list of facts on how the technique differs and what is new as compared to other techniques of this type. There are significant 'steps' missing if it were a how-to.

I understand the motivations and judgments stated above, and I think they're reasonable. However, I think they are also partly responsible for the lack of content on WIkepedia... speaking here only of my circumscribed area of knowledge in what is called 'warm glass' working (ie not hot glass a.k.a. glass blowing, and not cold a.k.a. cut glass and leaded glass). Wikipedia has nearly nothing in respect to warm glass techniques and history. Just try a search on : warm glass, kilnformed glass, kiln working, and very limited info on torchworked/lampworked glass, etc.

Interestingly this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lampworking has a how-to list. If limited to simple examples (as this article does) how-to info in very informative by providing a general sense of what is actually being discussed in the article, and gives the reader an appreciation of the finished object, and what the artist goes through in creating the object.

Few of us working in the field have the time to (many not the skill or desire) to learn what it takes to document in encyclopedic fashion... and then get no credit for it? I understand the very serious need not to turn Wikipedia into an advertising dumping ground. However credit needs to be given where it is due in order to attract artists, technicians and other folks pushing art glass in new directions to create content (and content befitting of course).

I wouldn't have started down this path had I not seen the "Fritography" article. It is obviously done with a contemporary of mine in mind, credit is given, and what is missing is that there basically is no mention of technical detail. So from a readers point of view my article actually has content. The 'accepted' article is basically a disguised ad. Now... do I really think that? No, I'll give the creator of the Fritography article credit, and maybe there will actually be something useful there someday.

I understand your motivations and applaud your efforts. However I see distinct hurdles to creating content, hurdles which ultimately do a disservice to the primary goal of Wikipedia of providing content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim boles (talk • contribs) 18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the article Fritography is not really a good one, it needs to be modified, and we should not use it as an example. Now, concerning this article: It is a good start, but the problems become also obvious for any reader right away: The only reference in the article is to Jim Boles, who is actually the ceator of the displayd painting and of the article. I would see it as a first priority to introduce more references. This would also establish notability. Otherwise, the article might sooner or later get a {{notability}} mark on top, in addition the the other ones it has already. Yes, I agree, there are many things still missing at Wikipedia. I would suggest you to get working on it right away, instead of wasting the time with much discussion on this page here. Finally, if possible, I would like to change the title of the article to "Glass powder painting" to make it clear to any layman that glass is used, not some other kind of powder.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 11:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the {{notability}} banner on the page Fritography and its related page Michael Dupille. Now it is time to work on this article.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 11:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion, Fritography

As I understand it correctly, both, Fritography and Powder painting are using the same starting material and have a final firing step. The differences are, from the little information available, that a painting is produced in one case, and a solid body in the other. - Still the techniques seem very related to me.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 12:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, glass powder painting would be a better title. Yes, they are very similar processes in that you start with glass in powder form or 'frit' (small bits) form, build an image by manipulating the powder/frit, then put it in a kiln to finalize the image. They vary only in process steps, technical detail, and the look of the final image.

Yes, I think merging them is a good idea too. The problem I see is how do we talk about the topic, and show images of what we are talking about without showing the work which is attributed to living artists and I am one of the artists? Is there a way to do that? There are a hand full of artists whose work should be shown and variations in style/technique noted.

I would need to contact the other artists and ask permission to show their work, right?

Now, if we are going to make a generic article I would also need to ask the other artists what the generic title would be, correct?

OR... on the other hand, do we not show pictures at all and not mention any names? To me that lowers the value of the article.

Just looking for direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim boles (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable reply. Concerning my merging suggestion, I take it from your input that it seems to be reasonable? Still powder and frit are slightly different, but frit also includes powder. In case the merging works well, we would come closer to a solution for several problems: The notability increases, as obviously not just one but two artists are using the technique, the problem of advertisement decreases (again because of the two artists), and referencing becomes easier. Regarding the images I would suggest to leave everything as it is for now. Additions can be done later. It is not a good thing at Wikipedia to add your own work (advertisement), but again, for now I simply would leave it because we have nothing else anyway, as far as I know. You do not need to contact other artists. If you know their names and add them, it would further increase notability. About the generic title, you are free to suggest one, there is no problem to change it later in case it is no longer appropriate.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After contacting the Fritography artist I doubt there will be a willingness to jointly develop content as noted above. Issues of ownership trump any desire for the creation of generic content. Additionally, I am requesting that my article be deleted, also because of questions of 'ownership' of technique. I simply do not want to invest time in fretting out what ownership or origination of the technique means, and on what grounds it is verified, etc.

I agree that the 'ower' of the Fritograpy technique has spent considerable part of his career promoting a certain technique, and indeed has considerable recognition; however the technical and legal details of the claim of ownership are a set of topics I have no desire to explore, even if I have or had grounds at a point in the past to question the claim.

I am requesting that you work Mr. Dupille on his article to restore it to its original status, since I would fully agree that within the niche area of fusing with frit he is indeed a recognized leader. Since I do not wish to question any claims to ownership I fully support and would recognize the authenticity of the claim as would any knowledgeable person working in the field.

My original intention was to expand Wikipedia content in the glass fusing area, and as discussed above there are considerable factors that make that difficult for a novice/would-be creator of Wikipedia content creator. It is regrettable that my first foray regarding one technique of many has hit so many difficulties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim boles (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about your bad experiences. In case I am able to do something about it, please let me know. - Concerning the legal situation: As far as I know, an artistic technique can not be patented and it can not be "owned" by Mr. Dupille or you in such a way that one artist can sue the other one (except for copyright violations for a certain piece of art). There is no "artistic technique ownership" before the law. The artistic techniques are usually so advanced, however, that they can not be copied by a layman so easily. Mr. Dupille or you may want to keep the techniques a secret nevertheless, just to make sure that no skilled person can try to use them and become a competitor. If this is your choice or you have other reasons you may place the template {{subst:AfD}} there on top. Otherwise, the article Fritography is not the property of somebody, hence, nobody can request something without consulting other Wikipedia editors. I think the {{notability}} banner is rightfully there because nothing is explained about its importance and no reference is given, besides to the artist. - I wish you all the best with your business, and maybe later you could contribute to Wikipedia in other ways, not related to your job.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I realized that Mr. Dupille placed a "TM" sign in the Fritography article. He seems to legally own the term "Fritography". However, this ownership does not extent to the technique, he owns the term only.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish to respect Mr. Dupille's desire in letter and spirit regardless of legal grounds for such. I can still see the powder painting article and would like it removed. Thank you.

I'm signing off at this point. Further correspondence can be directed to jim@jimbolesdesigns.com

This has been quite the learning experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim boles (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]