Talk:Drowning Girl

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Drowning Girl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Status (talk · contribs) 04:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Lead is a bit short. Can't it be expanded on further?
  • Expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure if Detail is the correct title for the section, but I don't know what else it could be titled.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Critical review --> Reception
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I see no other issues with the article. It is well referenced and written.

• All issues addressed. Passing article. Great work! Statυs (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

drive by comment

Way too much copyrighted material in the footnotes. No excuse for this. Editor should have used his own words. Also, one blockquote is attributed to to different sources. How is this? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

concerns about copyvio and combining quotes from two different sources.

This quote in the article appears to combine the words of two authors in a way that makes it impossible to determine who wrote what

In the Drowning Girl the water is not only Art Nouveau, but it can also be seen as Hokusai. I don't do it just because it is another reference. Cartooning itself sometimes resembles other periods in art – perhaps unknowingly ... They do things like the little Hokusai waves in the Drowning Girl. But the original wasn't very clear in this regard – why should it be I was it and then pushed it a little further until it was a reference that most people will gett ... it is a way of crystallizing the style by exaggeration.

— Sources,

• Below are samples of excessive quoting from the footnotes.

quotes from Waldman (besides the above)

• Waldman. p. 113. "In both Hopeless and Drowning Girl, for example, Lichtenstein felt it unnecessary to make more than the most minimal changes to the comic-book panels on which he modeled them."
• Waldman. p. 63. "Lichtenstein achieved an unusual effect by utilizing text as a dominant feature of the work. Rather than using language as just an accessory to the visual motif, he forced a direct confrontation between the spectator and the message contained within the narrative. While the viewer can be passive in front of an image, it is far more difficult to remain that way when the narrative is sufficiently large enough and aggressive enough so that it encroaches upon the audience's mental space and challenges the spectator to react. Dramas as engrossing as those that were presented on radio and TV or in the movies court a response as the spectator reads:...'I Don't Care! I'd Rather Sink – Than Call Brad For Help!' (fig. 106). These emotional outbursts are in marked contrast to the coolness of the technique, a contrast that Lichtenstein emphasizes."
• Waldman. p. 113. "In other paintings by Lichtenstein, women are engaged in a series of fantasy dramas. Hopeless (fig. 104), Drowning Girl (fig. 106), and In the Car (fig. 103), all from 1963, and We Rose Up Slowly (fig. 108), 1964, revolve around love affairs in which the men are clearly in control and the women are usually depicted as miserable. These paintings set the state for a series of "girls" in various states of apparent anxiety, nervouseness, or fear, most of whom are portrayed as "the girl next door" or the innocent seductress, as in Blonde Waiting (fig. 112), Oh, Jeff ... I Love You, Too ... But ... (fig. 111), Good Morning Darling, and Seductive Girl, all from 1964. The women protagonists in these dramas enact scenes filled with fabricated emotions."
• Waldman. p. 113."In Hopeless and Drowning Girl, for example, the heroines appear as victims of unhappy love affairs, with one displaying helplessness...and the other defiance (she would rather drown than ask for her lover's help)."
• Waldman. p. 75. "His extraordinary sense of organization, his ability to use a sweeping curve and manipulate it into an allover pattern, encompassing waves, hair, and even the text balloon, transformed the initial subject into a major image."

Waldman 1993 is also quoted extensively in other, related articles, e.g. Yellow and Green Brushstrokes, Girl with Ball, Whaam!, Bedroom at Arles, Girl in Mirror, Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, Little Big Painting, Drowning Girl, Big Painting No. 6 and others.

quotes from Hendrickson, Janis (1993)

• Hendrickson, Janis (1993). "The Pictures That Lichtenstein Made Famous, or The Pictures That Made Lichtenstein Famous". Roy Lichtenstein. Benedikt Taschen. p. 34. ISBN 3-8228-9633-0. "The Drowning Girl (Ill. p. 31) (1963) shows a young woman who seems to have cried herself a river. She is literally drowning in emotion and has abandoned herself to its destructive forces. Brad, the name of the man involved with several of Lichtenstein's "heroines", must have hurt her badly."
• Hendrickson, Janis (1993). "The Pictures That Lichtenstein Made Famous, or The Pictures That Made Lichtenstein Famous". Roy Lichtenstein. Benedikt Taschen. p. 34. ISBN 3-8228-9633-0. "Lichtenstein conceded that this wave was adapted from the Japanese artist Hokusai's famous wave print, which may account for its decorative look. Otherwise, the entire situation is disconcertingly sudden and extreme."
• Hendrickson, Janis (1993). "The Pictures That Lichtenstein Made Famous, or The Pictures That Made Lichtenstein Famous". Roy Lichtenstein. Benedikt Taschen. p. 34. ISBN 3-8228-9633-0. "She is lying in the watere as if it were a bed, a mixture of eroticism and final resting place."
• Hendrickson, Janis (1993). "The Pictures That Lichtenstein Made Famous, or The Pictures That Made Lichtenstein Famous". Roy Lichtenstein. Benedikt Taschen. p. 34. ISBN 3-8228-9633-0. "Lichtenstein enjoyed presenting the single-frame climax of a situation, since it reduced the viewer's ability to identify with the crisis and abstracted its emotive force."

Tøjner. "I Know How You Must Feel..."

• Tøjner. "I Know How You Must Feel...". Tøjner states that this is "Lichtenstein's finest formulation of a counter-image to the many explosions in his universe", noting that the drama is past its peak although it may seem to be at a crescendo.[17] He also notes that "the tears are drawn with classic Lichtenstein waxy fullness" despite the surrounding water, which must signal since "naturalistic justification" is absent.
• Tøjner. "I Know How You Must Feel...". In Holm, et al.. Roy Lichtenstein: All About Art. Louisiana Museum of Modern Art. p. 21. "In contrast to this theme of anticipation, we find what I call the 'post-coital perdition' pictures. The star witness here is of course Drowning Girl from 1963, whose drama may seem to be at its climax, but its nevertheless past its peak...The picture is Lichtenstein's finest formulation of a counter-image to the many explosions in his universe – for this maelstrom, implosion par excellence. The girl is sinking into the depths, completely resigned, although her resignation is rooted in pride: rather die than give in to Brad. Although she is lying in water up to her neck, almost under one of the Hokusai-like waves, the tears are drawn with classic Lichtenstein waxy fullness – popcorn tears – and you can assume they are important as a signal, for they can surely have no naturalistic justification in the scene of all-enveloping water."
• Tøjner. "I Know How You Must Feel...". In Holm, et al.. p. 21. "Most of all, these tears – like so many other women's tears in Lichtenstein's work – are like the residue of the pornographic cum-shot, thus confirming the post-coital melancholy. Drowning Girl is as far as I know the only picture of a girl whose mouth is open beyond an unmarked white wall of teeth – one could see this vaginal detail as important to the pornographic aura of science."

There are other excessively long quotes from other authors. Most of these quotes are completely unnecessary and could easily have been reworded by the editor. A few choice quotes would be much more effective. Also, there are many unnecessary quotes in the article itself.

Other authors are also extensively quoted, here and in other articles on a series of works by Lichtenstein. Is this really ok? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Core?

The work is considered[weasel words] one of the highlights of the core collection of the Museum of Modern Art...(42)

I'm sorry but this is total nonsense..Perhaps this is someone's - Wright, Carol V - opinion - however it is absurd, and certainly not neutral or encyclopedic. Van Gogh's Starry Night, Matisse's Dance, Picasso Les Demoiselles D'Avignon, the large Pollock, Rodin's Balzac, and dozens of other works...Modernist (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Is your point that this is just another random $75 million dollar painting in the hallowed halls. Surely, this painting would sell in the $70-100 million range since random Lichtensteins are selling for $56 million. In what museum is a $75 million dollar painting not a highlight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And how much money do you think Les Demoiselles D'Avignon or Starry Night or The Dance would bring? Is that what this is about? It's worth a lot of money - so lets make a feature article?..Modernist (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying this is a top top price painting. I am just saying it would make the List of most expensive paintings without a doubt. It may be 100-150 million even. The Dance is probably a $200-300 million dollar painting. Let's say that The Dance is a $200 million painting and Drowning Girl is a $100 million dollar painting. The latter is still a highlight of any collection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the ORIGINAL splash page from the comic book be even more valuable, then? 76.253.72.116 (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Eric

In terms of FA aspirations. I think any artwork with over 10KB of content has a legitimate case for consideration for FA. This article has a significant amount of legitimate content. Why not? Originally my motivation was the 50th anniversary of its debut, which I thought was coming up on September 28. Then I realized it had exhibited in April. I was shooting for FA for a 50th anniversary TFA, not based on its value. That is the same reason I am shooting for FA for Whaam!.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

And Carol V. Wright is...an art historian?...an art critic?...an eminent expert on Pop Art?...a museum curator?...Modernist (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you make some cogent thoughts at the FAC rather than post stray comments everywhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• P.S. I think in the long run Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol will by like Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. People who actually saw them both thought Cobb was the better player. IIRC, he got more Baseball Hall of Fame votes when they were on the original ballot. In time, Ruth's legend surpassed Cobb's and he is remembered more fondly. People in time will remember the comic-based art more fondly than soup cans. 50 or 100 years from now Lichtensteins will be more valuable than Warhols.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion, which is more than a little absurd in this context. Both Roy and Andy were important artists - no one disputes that, or that this Lichtenstein painting is one of his seminal works...Modernist (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

50 or 100 years from now both of them as well as the entire ensemble of 'pop artists' will be seen as perhaps early examples of what can be termed 'the engineering of art-related consensus': as extraneous to beauty as the advertising industry is to needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.228.223 (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tribues

Came across this reinvention of the painting, would it be notable to mention or link to recreations of the artwork on various web sites like this? Ranze (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

primary material/secondary material

This is not an article primarily about Lichtenstein. We have an article Roy Lichtenstein. Some references to Lichtenstein and some references to other works of art by Lichtenstein are permissible in this article. But there is point beyond which that sort of material becomes extraneous. I've removed what I consider to be such material from the lede. Is there an argument for leaving it in the lede? Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to a revert here from @TonyTheTiger: I will reiterate that this article is basically about a painting. Some material on the whole body of work of Lichtenstein can be found in the body of this article. But I think there is a limit. A greater extent of such material could be woven into other articles, the most obvious being the article on the artist. But it is not inconceivable that an article could be initiated on the body of work best known to the public, which has been produced by this artist. The body of this article should not be overly loaded with concerns properly pertaining to the entire body of work of Lichtenstein. Nor should the lede be passing extensive commentary on the entire body of Lichtenstein's work. It is with this reasoning that I have made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize that I don't have time to debate with you I usually Uber Fri-Mon. Yes you posted this early enough Thursday that I could have responded, but I have to think about this and had other WP stuff to do. I think it is best if we call on the FAC participants to consider your change to the content that was passed at FAC. Thus, I am pinging Crisco 1492, Hiding, Modernist, Graham Beards, GermanJoe, Brianboulton, Another Believer, and Ceoil.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The material I have removed has been gratuitously added. There are two topics that are tangentially related. An article on a painting is just that. Sure, it can contain tangentially related material. But sophisticated art critics do not get overly exercised by the sort of concerns that you are elevating to high importance. The relationship between Lichtenstein and comic book artists has a place in our writings. But we have to be concerned with giving undue weight where this is unwarranted. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured article

Like   Bfpage |leave a message  15:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drowning Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606071341/http://lichtensteinfoundation.org/lfchron1.htm to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lfchron1.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drowning Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130627145324/http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/kimmelman1.htm to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/kimmelman1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112223049/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/02/deconstructing-lichtenstein-source-comics-revealed-and-credited/ to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/02/deconstructing-lichtenstein-source-comics-revealed-and-credited/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drowning Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104111859/http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lifemagroy.htm to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lifemagroy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002013823/http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2013/may/image-duplicator-pop-arts-comic-theft to http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2013/may/image-duplicator-pop-arts-comic-theft

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drowning Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150228085008/http://dcist.com/2012/10/roy_lichtenstein_a_retrospective_na.php to http://dcist.com/2012/10/roy_lichtenstein_a_retrospective_na.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this some form of plagiarism

Was Tony Abruzzo paid for this, or did Lichtenstein just rip it off? Carlo (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)