Talk:Abstract expressionism

Major artists vs. Other artists

This article groups the artists into two groups; Major artists vs. Other artists. While that would be fine if there were RS support for the split, I don't see evidence of any. We should not split the two based on OR. Does anyone have any RS support for the split? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche—connoisseurship plays a role in writing about art, in fact, as you know, good judgement plays a role in many things at Wikipedia. By connoisseurship I don't mean evaluation of aesthetic merits, for instance. I mean emphasis supplied by or not supplied by sources. In this case there are important artists that do not work squarely in the realm of Abstract expressionism. An example might be Frank Stella. He is merely listed as an "Other artist". Ditto for Robert Rauschenberg, Jean Dubuffet, and Jasper Johns. These are "major artists" but not ones most closely associated with Abstract expressionism. The artists listed under "Major artists" are the ones that sources identify more strongly with Abstract expressionism. An argument can be made for dissolving the barrier between the two categories. But I think that by eliminating the separation we would be losing a degree of information. More properly we could advise the reader to understand that separation as not absolute. Or perhaps we could write "Major artists (those most closely associated with Abstract expressionism)". Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bus. Thanks for your thoughts. I don't have a conceptual problem with a split between Major and Other. As long as it is something that an editor can come along and agree or disagree with, based on some objective (RS-supported) criteria. As an example, in sports I could say ... in baseball ... Major league vs. Other. But it is easy to determine which category the person belongs in. I could also distinguish All Star vs. not All Star. But if you were to suggest "Majorly good vs. Not so much", that would be a recipe for endless fruitless discussion. On top of that here, not only don't I know where the line is between major and minor, I don't know how much Abstract painting the artist must engage in to be Abstract vs. Major-painter-but-not really-major-in-Abstract. Plus, we like to have criteria that a novice with zero information -- just access to google and perhaps books in the field -- could apply. I think that to approach this otherwise simply has too much OR inherent in it. If there is a list in an RS of "Major artists (those most closely associated with Abstract expressionism)", then great, but if it is really like a favorite list on Amazon of three readers favorite movies of the year, I don't think we are losing that much at all. Thoughts? Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Abstract expressionism has a philosophical underpinning. Frank Stella has done a large body of work of varying underlying philosophies. As some of his work is importantly associated with Minimalism it might be best to exclude him from the closest of associations with Abstract expressionism. Robert Rauschenberg too. His work is closely associated with Pop art, Neo-Dada, and his own category—Combines. Jean Dubuffet is especially associated with art brut. Jasper Johns is associated with Pop art and Neo-Dada. Writers of the time that Abstract expressionistic work was being produced, identified those painters that were felt to express an embodiment of a currently fashionable philosophy. That philosophy involved a direct translation of one's inner turmoil into marks on a canvas. Authenticity of such translation from mental cogitation into painting was highly valued. Therefore the "major" artists are those most closely associated with Abstract expressionism by sources. Bus stop (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you know far more than I do, here. Look -- would I be able to split the US Presidents into Major and Other? I could, based on OR. But I could only justify such a split list if I had RSs that indicated that certain Presidents were the Major Presidents. Same here, IMHO. When you end your comment by saying "by sources", that suggests that perhaps there is RS sourcing for inclusion as "Major". If so, great. If not, I would suggest one list. It will just be an interminable argument otherwise, as it will be OR-based. Look, I'm having a frustrating time right now arguing a much simpler distinction of "in or out" here, where I even have RS support and highest-level government authorities speaking to the subject of "in or out". So ... that's where I'm coming from. Epeefleche (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know more than you about this. Even if we combined the two separate lists into one list, a similar problem might exist. There could conceivably be cases where disagreements could break out as to whether or not to include an artist in that one list. There are a huge number of artists and some sources might be insubstantial, and some mentions in sources might be insubstantial mentions. Would we really be accomplishing anything my merging the two lists? Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You are of course correct that combining the two lists would not eliminate all categorization problems. Look at the discussion I point to above, for example. It would however, I think, significantly reduce the prospect of them. I think it is far more common for an artist to be referred to in an RS as an Abstract Expressionist artist -- or not ... than as a "Major" Abstract Expressionist artist -- or not. And we, as we do with categories, would just rely on RS coverage. Speaking of categories, it is interesting that not even all of the artists on our Major list are presently included in Category:Abstract expressionist artists. It's sort of like the difference between saying someone is a Buddhist ... or saying that they are a religious Buddhist. The first construct is simply a more likely dividing line to be reported on by RSs, though on occasion there may be mention of the second. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Galleries

I think it would be good to include a section that mentions some of the galleries that focus on Abstract Expressionist art. The Tibor de Nagy Gallery, the Stable Gallery, perhaps the Betty Parsons Gallery and Kootz Gallery, etc. Any thoughts/suggestions? --Epeefleche (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

While that might seem to be a good idea it gets extremely complicated. Tenth Street galleries for instance contains artists who made Abstract expressionism, Pop Art, Minimal art, Realism, Figurative artists, abstract artists, often shown in the same galleries. Likewise even though at one time the Sidney Janis Gallery showed Pollock, de Kooning, Kline, Rothko, Guston, Gottlieb, Motherwell, and others - by '62 they began showing Oldenburg, Wesselmann, and other Pop artists while some of the Abstract expressionist painters left for the Marlborough Gallery or joined the Knoedler Gallery, or stayed away from the galleries altogether for a number of years, or joined other galleries that also moved away from what they were doing. The subject is Abstract expressionism and who does it; the gallery scene of constant change is another subject and another universe, IMHO...Modernist (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Some galleries seem to be devoted to abstract art primarily (or even sub-genres). What about adding two or three of those? See, for example, those I listed? No doubt there are harder cases, but what about listing some of the easier ones, with the description being that the gallery has been devoted to showing abstract art? Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Done...Modernist (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll try to find time to add some refs. I, as noted before, still have a general concern that much of the article is unreferenced. A non-expert can't distinguish between correct material added by someone who is knowledgeable, and incorrect material. I still think it would be good to address that, though it is a major endeavor given the condition of the article. Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter Falk and Narducci: COI?

Does this revision create a COI for User:Peter_Falk? This article http://rediscoveredmasters.com/Artists/ShowArtist/44 was written by a "Peter Hastings Falk". Mduvekot (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Abstract expressionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111227141320/http://www.artdaily.org/section/news/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=36171&int_modo=1 to http://www.artdaily.org/section/news/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=36171&int_modo=1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110622073303/http://www.projo.com/art/content/projo_20030710_artwrap10.5e2b3.html to http://www.projo.com/art/content/projo_20030710_artwrap10.5e2b3.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090312073536/http://www.haunchofvenison.com:80/en/ to http://www.haunchofvenison.com/en/#page=home.shop.books.abstract_expressionism
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040624012050/http://www.aestheticrealism.org:80/Philip_Guston/Philip_Guston.html to http://www.aestheticrealism.org/Philip_Guston/Philip_Guston.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Abstract expressionism → Abstract Expressionism – all other art movements are capitalized Espoo (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Espoo: Best discuss this move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Abstract expressionism is correct and most art movements like Pop art and Conceptual art and many others are correct as well...Modernist (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We are actually inconsistent in this. If you look at the art movement template, pre-modern movements tend to be capitalized, while the rest are hit and miss. We tend to capitalize names that function as proper nouns (Hudson River School), while descriptive names (Installation art) are lower case in the second word (although this isn't consistent). I don't know what the WP:MOS says about it, but in addition to making things uniform, we should stick to upper-case/lower-case for two or more words in article titles. freshacconci talk to me 16:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unsourced lists

This article is not exempt from WP:V or WP:NPOV. Unsourced lists of artists, broken down into "Major" and "Other", plainly represent subjective value judgments. We may report sourced critical evaluations of artists, but not impose our own value judgments. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree. They must all be referenced as well as possible. That will take time...Modernist (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Newman-Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Roberto Matta

Hello. I think the article is missing one of the most important figures of abstract expressionism, Roberto Matta. Indeed, he was one of the most important catalyzers of all the movement, he put together some of the most important painters (Pollock, Motherwell) in the first years of the 40's, sharing his ideas and the project of starting a new movement with them, and was a decisive influence in the work of Gorky and Motherwell. All of this, and his own production, before some of the main works of the said artists. This has been recognized by the biographers of the painters indicated, in contemporary and later analysis of abstract expressionism, and even in some of the most important critiques of his time (including Clement Greenberg). In the main museums of the world where his pictures are exhibited, he is recognized as a seminal figure of abstract expressionism. I think he should be included in the article, in the section of "Major figures", with a special paragraph in the History section, and of course on the list of abtract expressionists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CristianDA (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)