Talk:Abstract expressionism/Archive 1

Where is the criticism section?

Not everyone likes abstract exp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.223.108 (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, the "Style" and "Art Critics.." sections seem to present more balanced information, whereas the "History" section is celebratory, even admiring. Some over-generalizations (e.g., "Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, [...] and others opened the floodgates to the diversity and scope of all the art that followed them.") and opinions ("the serenely shimmering blocks of color in Mark Rothko's work," e.g.) should either be supported by citations or removed. Likewise, there's repetition between the sections (the sentence "Abstract expressionism has an image of being rebellious, anarchic, highly idiosyncratic and, some feel, rather nihilistic." appears more than once, e.g.) that could be removed and/or expounded upon. It would be great to hear more about some of these repeated ideas (like the nihilistic tendencies) rather than restating them, as most of them are "main idea" type statements that could be cornerstones for deeper inquiry. Thedreamymoon (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Old talk

I have deleted the external link: *Art Research Notes on Abstract Expressionism as it appears to be a broken link.

cheers Mike Lawrence Turner 15:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Although it is true that spontaneity or of the impression of spontaneity characterized many of the abstract expressionists works, most of these paintings involved careful planning, especially since their large size demanded it. An exception might be the drip paintings of Pollock."

I believe this statement is based on a misconception about "Jack the Dripper" and his paintings, one which I shared until I read of the computer analysis related here: [1] and here:[2], which discovered fractal patterns in Pollock's works. As the Discover article says, "Pollock's drip method was as complex and exquisitely controlled as it seemed crude and haphazard. It often took him weeks to achieve the fractal layerings in his paintings..."

Just FYI.

69.151.151.52 06:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought Pollock's work displayed a high degree of structure. I'm sure there must be research out there that supports that view. Maybe I'll look next time I have a few minutes to spare. Steve James 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

you had Willem dekooning listed twice so I removed the second one.

HELP!

ok well im trying to go through the artists and make it so its a direct link on all of them rather then going to a breakdown of all of people named that, the one i am working on now is Paul Jenkins and i am trying to do that but whenever i try to change it it never works, i try the thing which is

Paul Jenkins (Us painter)|Paul Jenkins

and it doesnt work, i would like someone to try to get thqat to work because its not working for me :( thanks

--Er a wikipiki wiki wum 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

nvm i got it

--Er a wikipiki wiki wum

Somebody added Piet Mondriaan as an abstract expressionist, but I've removed him. It's probably true that had he worked in the US after World War II he would have been called abstract expressionist, but as he worked in Holland before World War II he never is. --Camembert

I disagree, as I find that alot of Mondrains work is abstract,as he create images of landscapes that appear to be a selection of squares.Just because he didnt produce work in New York before and after WW II , why should that effect him being an adstract expressionist??

Because then no Americans would ever know about De Stijl, that's why. (Not that many seem to anyway, but that's another matter.) Either way, the Abstract Expressionists were not the only Abstract artists ever, and Abstract art isn't necessarily always AbEx. --Bảo 20:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Gestural and Chromatic Abstraction

I never thought I'd ever end up saying something like this, but... why is there no mention of the AbEx subcategories chromatic abstraction and gestural abstraction? I'm not making these things up. Behold, cited definitions:

• chromatic abstraction— A kind of Abstract Expressionism that focused on the emotional resonance of color, as exemplified by the work of Barnett Newman and Mark Rothko. (pg 1095, Glossary)
• gestural abstraction— Also known as action painting. A kind of abstract painting in which the gesture, or act of painting, is seen as the subject of art. Its most renowned proponent was Jackson Pollock. (pg 1097, Glossary)
  • Fred S. Kleiner, Christin J. Mamiya (2004). Gardner's Art Through the Ages, Volume II. Wadsworth Publishing. ISBN 0534640915.

It might be useful to point out these, or even just use them to organize the current list of artists differently, as there is a difference between the two that can be confusing to people who don't know it's there. --Bảo 20:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I've found out the problem with gestural abstraction— the Wikipedia article on it is under action painting, but gestural abstraction doesn't redirect to it. Going to fix that now. --Bảo 20:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This sucks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheKid (talk • contribs). Tyrenius 07:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This "chromatic abstraction" sounds interchangeable with Color field painting. Please see that article. Perhaps you could create a "chromatic abstraction" page that redirects to Color field painting, and then edit the 'color field' page to include mention of "chromatic abstraction" as an alternate term. -MarylandArtLover

OK, I've done what I suggested above. I hope this is satisfactory to all concerned. MdArtLover 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

This article could use some more visual examples.

Kandinsky an abstract expressionist?

Well, he certainly was an abstractionist...and he formed Der Blaue Reiter in conjunction with Franz Marc and a few other German expressionists. But an exponent of ab-ex itself? Nope.

Response to the above. I wrote the bulk of the last section and said: "Abstract Expressionism has many stylistic similarities to the Russian artists of the early twentieth century such as Wassily Kandinsky." I never said he was an "abstract expressionist". Please read more carefully before you throw around your criticism. Ed

The Museum of Modern Art in New York has a poster by Alfred Barr published in 1936 delinating the trends in modern art from 1890 to 1935. In the left column on the poster is written: (ABSTRACT) EXPRESSIONISM 1911 Munich The poster is reproduced on p 391 in "modernism. designing a new world" Ed Christopher Wilk published by the Victoria and Albert Museum in 2006. /Galmenberg 09:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

References

{1}, {2}, {3}, {4} and {5} should appear. Thank you. Protector 00:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Abstract Art and Abstract Expressionism are not the same, but is a difference of kind, not degree. Jackson Pollack, Mondrian, and Kandinsky, all mentioned in this article, as being an example of Abstract Expressionism is simply wrong. The above were pure abstraction. An article at the; "The Bulfinch Guide to Art History"; http://artchive.com/artchive/abex.html strongly suggest a distinct difference of Pure abstraction and Abstract Expression. Edvard Munch, altered images to enhance the expression of his depiction of horror in his painting, The Scream. Pure abstraction has no pointed expression motive behind their works. The practice of altering and/or adding abstract elements into a more expressive image has influenced the art of commercial images. Van Gogh's work, A Starry Night, has all the elements of abstract expressionism. Excellent expressionism reference at; http://arthistory.heindorffhus.dk/frame-Style20-Expressionism.htm G.E.Wolfe

My understanding of Abstract Expressionism is that it is a term applied to American Artists painting abstract work after World War II. Certainly there have been many painters painting abstractly before that. Modrian and Kandinsky certainly do not fit into that category. If you think Jackson Pollack is not an Abstract Expressionist, so be it. I will not argue. How Edvard Munch is the founder of Abstract Expressionism, I do not know. Ed Lynch

"How Edvard Munch is the founder of Abstract Expressionism, I do not know." I agree and corrected my view. Thanks! G.E.Wolfe

I composed much of what was in the middle section on Abstract Expressionism well over a year ago. I have rarely come back to it but I noticed that someone was critical of a social analysis I had. Also I had references to Clement Greenberg who, I think, is a critical componant to the establishment of Abstract Expressionism in the United States. They appear to have been removed. Someone critiqued the lack of citations which is fair. So I am back to give some citations and urge those who have the time to read the cited works and add material as they see necessary. One is Serge Builbaut's "How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art", University of Chicago Press, 1983. I give it a high recommendation. And also a Reader edited by Charles Harrison and Paul Wood, "Art in Theory, 1900 - 2000, An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA 2002. Thank you, Ed Lynch, Oct. 2007

Images for this article

Why are there no images of the art at all in a description of a whole movement?

OK, I've waited for months for someone to provide an image (besides the Pollock stamp, which doesn't show a clear example of a completed work). I hope the image I added is OK with all concerned. MdArtLover 19:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of Gulgee

A high-handed editor (not signed in) deleted the link to Gulgee. Gulgee is directly relevant to the article's discussion of the international influence of this movement and its connection to the cold-war era projection of US cultural prestige and power. Since the person who deleted the link apparently didn't bother to look at the relevant articles in order to see the relevance and sources, I will quote here from the Elaine Hamilton article:

According to Partha Mitter in Indian Art (Oxford History of Art), Elaine Hamilton was an important influence on the young Pakistani artist Ismail Gulgee (or Guljee, as it is sometimes spelled): "Impressed by the visiting American artist Elaine Hamilton, Guljee enthusiastically plunged into action painting...." [p.214]. In fact, according to David Craven, Hamilton became something of an ambassador for abstract expressionism in South Asia: "[Abstract expressionism] was promoted as a 'universal style' in Pakistan during the 1950s by a U.S. artist named Elaine Hamilton" [p. 23].

See the Gulgee and Hamilton articles for full bibliographic information including ISBNs.

A general note to all: please be aware, before you delete something, that someone else just might know something that you don't, however highly you may think of yourself.MdArtLover 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Marcel Duchamp

I would propose removing Marcel Duchamp from the list of AE artists. He produced virtually no original art of his own after 1923, and surely would not have subscribed to the ethos of AE, as it is a classic example of what he termed "retinal painting". He also advocated the divorce of art from subjective feeling, considering that art was an expression of idea, rather than inherently aesthetic. If no one disagrees here within 7 days, I'll knock him off the list. Steve James 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Categorizinging Duchamp as an abstract expressionist is ahistorical nonsense. 70.17.22.80 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Style section

The quote "Since the subject matter was often totally abstract it became a safe strategy for artists to pursue this style. Abstract art could be seen as apolitical. Or if the art was political, the message was largely for the insiders" is highly objectionable. Abstract artists were held to just as much, if not more, scrutiny as other artists. Abstract art was not a safe political move; artists were even called on to "explain" their work as part of the anti-communist crusades. This statement should be removed. --Calegreen 01:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If not removed, it certainly requires supporting citations. Steve James 09:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steve but would go farther. The statement requires not only citation but more context, including citation of opposing viewpoints. Though the statement as it stands is little more than a dawb of hostile graffiti, simply removing it would be the rude and lazy option. Better to flesh it out, expand on it, balance it, sourcing everything generously. MdArtLover 16:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This assumes a relationship between style in art and trends, which is really another way of saying styles, and that which is going on in the social and political realm beyond the artist's studio. While this relationship can be a tight one, I think it is more often impossible to tie artistic changes with the goings on in the world around them. It is an interesting theory. It could have relevance. But without citations it is original research. I therefore would just suggest tagging it as a questionable fact. Bus stop 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged it as {{Fact}}. Steve James 17:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

List of artists

Has anyone ever done a thorough review of the artists in the list to check their AE credentials? 69.209.238.39 has just added Mary Abbott which links erroneously to the wife of a Canadian politician. Performing a web search on Abbott indicates that she was a figurative rather than an AE artist. http://www.artfacts.net/index.php/pageType/artistInfo/artist/29871#Biography also indicates that she was a figurative painter, not an AE. It strikes me that a thorough review should be undertaken, which I'd gladly have a bash at, but I wouldn't want to repeat work that had already been done. Is their any way that listed artists could be given some sort of "seal of approval" to prevent people wasting time on checking the credentials of artists who are correctly listed? --Steve James 08:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to go through the list. Remember that some artists, like Phillip Guston and Richard Diebenkorn went through stages of more figurative work, but are still AE. Keep the list "broad", Clyfford Still really wasn't AE, but since he is traditionally grouped with them, he should stay on the list. Feel free to remove non-notable artists, especially red-link ones. --Knulclunk 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start and placed an {{underconstruction}} template in the list of artists section. Very happy for other people to contribute. I think it's clear where I'm going on this. I'm not planning to remove any artists from the list until I've split them into the two sub-lists. --Steve James 11:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth the AE painters are generally considered to be in two groups: Action painting and Color field painting. Clyfford Still, Rothko, Newman, Reinhardt and others etc. are part of the color field group while Pollock, de Kooning, Kline and others etc. are generally considered as action painters, all of them have roots in Surrealism. I think Pollock and Motherwell can be considered part of both camps. William Baziotes - an original AE painter is very close to the surrealists as was Arshile Gorky. Modernist 12:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The other distinction is by generation. Certain painters were considered first generation AE while younger artists were called second generation AE. I would recommend however that we drop that distinction which can be contested endlessly and was often used as a perjorative towards the 2nd generation. Modernist 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The list of artists is heavily based in New York. There is also a large number of well recognized West Coast Abstract Expressionists who came mostly out of the California School of Fine Arts in San Francisco. There were also a number of artists who left that community to paint in Marin County, Sonoma County and Medocino- most notably Paul Zacca and Ray Rice with the Medocino Art Center. Please read Susan Landauer's excellent book: The San Francisco School of Abstract Expressionism, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1996. Thank You, Ed Lynch October 2007

I am here to give some background to my contention about "insiders". I have left a citation from page 173 of Serge Guibaut's book about the "theft of modern art." Certainly most would agree that Paris and the art world of Paris was in a shambles after World War II. The United States remained relatively unscathed. Greenberg and his cohorts saw the opportunity to focus attention on the art world of New York. Despite the Marxist leaning of Greenberg, there was no tolerance for the leftist sympathies of the former decade, now that the Soviet Union was the new enemy. Indeed there was vibrant and "new" abstract art coming from New York. Whether conscious or unconscious, the art that was promoted by Greenberg and the New York Times was safe. Paris had no real influence at the time. The new center of the art world had become New York, as a result of the catastrophe of World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.217.187 (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Template

• Steve James please don't create a template, like this one and then leave. If you want to edit - then edit. I'd appreciate it when you are ready to actually edit, then put up your sign, and remove it when you are finished. Thanks Modernist 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

{{underconstruction}}

Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the template. My assumption was that this template was meant to indicate that a section of an article was in the process of being changed, but over a period of time during which there might be a risk that editors might revert changes that looked incomplete. I fully intend to return to the section this weekend (which I had assumed lay within the "few days" which appears in the template text). I actually thought quite carefully before placing the template and felt it was inappropriate to use the {{inuse}} template which actively discourages other edits and should only be applied for a few hours at most. Sorry if I slipped up --Steve James 22:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Jackson Pollock

I added a Jackson Pollock painting No. 5, 1948, to illustrate Abstract expressionism Modernist 02:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Red Links

There are too many red linked artists here, (I added most of them myself), however I hope other editors will please write the articles about these artists - they are all mostly notable and worthy with few exceptions. Modernist 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of references

Hi Anastrophe! In the article Abstract Expressionism I contributed the following elements to the article:

Art critics of the post-World War II era

To the list of artists I contributed

Mary Callery article; Albert Kotin article; Taro Yamamoto (artist) article;

James Brooks mainly documentation; Conrad Marca-Relli mainly documentation; Manoucher Yektai mainly documentation;

I just created the article Anne Ryan and it has some pertinent references. I will contribute some biographies in the future. Please review my page Salmon1 I find it very important to provide reliable and verifiable references. Sincerely, (Salmon1 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

i support your efforts to improve the article; nicely done.Anastrophe 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your recognition. Wikipedia is a difficult arena even with my background. I will continue to edit until I see its relevance. Sincerely, (Salmon1 07:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Major artists - WP:NOTE. for purposes of such lists, no article, not notable enough for list

Hi Anastrophe! The Wikipedia is a permanently growing encyclopedia created and sustained by the public. That artists may not have an article in the Wikipedia does not imply that they are therefore not notable. Please view |Artists of the Ninth Street Show. If the artists are listed without the Wiki symbol [[]] they have no articles. It is crucial to reference the dates of birth and/or death of each artist since without this information there is no clear definition as to their identity. This may provide an impetus to create new articles. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, (Salmon1 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

i understand your point, but you are misinterpreting my intent. i'm not saying that the artists aren't notable. i'm saying that for purposes of lists of artists, it is a bad idea to include artists who have not yet had an article created for them. the reason? vandals. by including named artists who don't yet have articles, it merely creates a 'honey pot' that attracts vandals, who will add names of friends, rivals, whomever, in hopes that they'll be overlooked. if an artist is notable, then the artist should have an article created. once the article is created, add their name to the list. notability is established separately from a list. it's essentially pointless to include a name in the list absent any supporting citations, or the artist having an article in place already. Anastrophe 21:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Before this escalates into an edit war I want to throw my support behind Anastrophe. Even if the redlinks (or nonlinks) are allowed to remain for a while, they will inevitably be removed sooner or later by any editor cleaning up the lists. --Ethicoaestheticist 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anastrophe! Discussions, according to the Webster's New World Dictionary, are not wars but ”talk or writing in which the pros and cons or various aspects of a subject are considered." I also think that people with similar goals and intentions can greatly benefit from discussions. I see your point about "vandalism." I came across it myself and I was shocked. (I never thought that I could be shocked at this stage of my life.) I believe if one does a correct responsible activity it can always be defended. I am thinking of an imaginary wikipedia editor who did not intend to write an article on Bradley Walker Tomlin but if he or she sees that this name is not in blue on a list they would take the trouble to go to the literature and do the job. The reward is that now with the Wiki symbol [[]] the name will turn blue. It sounds funny but it works with me. In a pluralistic society we all like to be appreciated while adhering to a group of our choice. Nevertheless I see your point and I agree with you. Sincerely, (Salmon1 00:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

actually - note that it was Ethicoaestheticist who broached possible escalation. I'm certainly not of a mind to edit war about this either way. I do see the benefit of the redlinked names being there as hopefully encouraging creation of articles. And, a counter argument to my own that occurs to me is that limiting inclusion of names in anticipation of possible future vandalism could be viewed as an informal prior restraint. we must take care that we not restrict ourselves in order to prevent vandalism that may or may not occur. so, as is common for me, i'm firmly planted on the fence, ending up being no help at all. ;^) Anastrophe 01:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anastrophe! I truly enjoyed your reply. Do what you think and I will comply. Sincerely, (Salmon1 01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

Arshile Gorky, Portrait of Master Bill, 1929-1936

Concerning this painting in the gallery: I can't see that this painting is an example of abstract expressionism by any stretch of any definition. I don't think it belongs in the gallery for this article. MdArtLover (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Louis Schanker, Abstraction with Muscial Instruments, 1932

Concerning this painting in the gallery, I have the same objection: I can't see that this painting is an example of abstract expressionism by any stretch of any definition. I don't think it belongs in the gallery for this article. MdArtLover (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Adolph Gottlieb, Man Looking at Woman, 1949

And thirdly, concerning this painting in the gallery, I have the same objection: I can't see that this painting is an example of abstract expressionism by any stretch of any definition. I don't think it belongs in the gallery for this article. MdArtLover (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes to MdArtLover

Dear MdArtLover! It is refreshing to read your comments. I found that the best way is to contribute material with very well furnished references. As far as the painting and sculpture examples go I would not wage a fight. To differentiate art from painting is probably one of the most difficult tasks. Artists struggle with it all through their creative lives. Great masters burned their life’s work because of the fear of failure. It can be even more taxing to choose between works of artists when one has limited access to their oeuvre. Most of the time people memorize names and rarely works unless they have been endlessly repeated. When a work of art becomes inspiring to the viewer he or she can go and look for more works by the same artist. Sometimes by seeing more of the works one decides not to be interested in that particular artist any more. On the other hand one can refine appreciation by growing more experienced in viewing works of art. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely Yours, (69.125.246.230 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC))(Salmon1 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

I think these three paintings are perfectly OK, maybe even great. It's not that I think they're trivial or bad. I just don't think they're abstract expressionist. I don't have time right now to write more about this. Thanks for the response. MdArtLover (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ab-Ex images

Dear intrepid Modernist: Hi. It's nice to have an excuse to correspond with you again. I need your input. I recently posted on the ab-ex talk page my objections to the inclusion of three of the gallery images, not on grounds that the paintings are bad or unimportant, but on the grounds that they are not examples of abstract expressionism (though there may be other paintings by the same artists which are ab-ex). What do you think? I'm watching both this page and the ab-ex talk page, so I'll see your reply promptly wherever you may leave it. Thanks! MdArtLover (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think the Adolph Gottlieb is fine, it's an early example - a "pictograph," as he refered to them of his early Abstract expressionism that evolved into his "Bursts" which are better known. Admittedly the Gorky portrait of de Kooning is early and figurative, but it clearly relates to the work of John D. Graham (the mentor of Gorky, de Kooning and Pollock) and to de Koonings early figurative paintings that were influenced by Gorky and Graham. It presages the abstractions that were to come. I wish we had a later Gorky to work with as a replacement. The Louis Schanker poses a problem for me, it is too Cubist, too derivative, and a minor work by a minor artist. It probably should be deleted. I placed it chronologically, but I have reservations. If you - my old friend want to delete it I would offer no objection. Keep in mind though that both Pollock and de Kooning made important figurative work during the all important early 1950s. Modernist (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the fact that a work is figurative. An absence of figuration is only one of a set of traits which tend to predominate in abstract expressionism. De Kooning's paintings of women show the other tendencies of the movement so strongly - the savage application of paint, the emphasis on the physical quality of paint itself, the anti-orderliness, the "all-over" look of spontaneous painterly action, the large scale, the exuberant untidiness, the quality of the elemental that makes them almost seem works of nature, the mystical irrationality, the refusal to "compose" the picture or to help the viewer decide where to look, the absence of any sense of "drawing" that underlies the painted image, etc.- that it's easy to place them within abstract expressionism. In my opinion, none of these three really suits, but certainly the Schanker qualifies least as an example abstract expressionism. I really hate deleting things, so I'm going to have to think about this for a while longer before taking such a drastic step. MdArtLover (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I like your description of de Kooning, but Gorky never really relinquished his tender side, even in his most sophisticated and abstract works between 1944 and 1948. His color is always clear, his surfaces considered and subtle, even when they are dripped and loose, his use of composition, line and shapes - measured and enormously effective, set him apart from his rougher and as you describe more violent contemporaries like - de Kooning, Pollock and Kline. Gottlieb was on the other hand more like Rothko, Still, Newman, Reinhardt and Motherwell the more cerebral types, more about Color field painting then about action painting. The Gottlieb that is seen is a good example of his pictographs (rooted in mythology), and primitive painting, and like Rothko's more surrealist paintings of the late 1940s they are his early abstract expressionism. More about the Schanker I can't say. I'd say put the painting into his article, but it is already there. This morning I was talking with one of my students about how Franz Kline made small drawings before several of his most powerful and seemingly most spontaneous and violent looking paintings. Sometimes abstract expressionism isn't really abstract expressionism. :) Modernist (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rothko and Kline do not contradict what I'm saying. I'm saying that there must be a preponderance of the core traits of ab-ex in a work for it to qualify as an example. De Kooning's women, though they lack the absence of figuration predominant in ab-ex, still have a preponderance of the other traits. In the same way, Rothko's quieter canvases have a preponderance of the core traits of ab-ex, including: the emphasis on the physical quality of paint itself, the large scale, the quality of the elemental that makes them almost seem works of nature, the mystical irrationality, the refusal to "compose" the picture or to help the viewer decide where to look, the absence of any sense of "drawing" that underlies the painted image, etc. The fact that his paintings (usually) lack any obvious exuberance or violence or impetuosity and are instead brooding and depressive is not enough to disqualify them. Ditto Kline's works which in some cases may have been preceded by small-scale drawings: this is a difference in procedure that is notable, yet far from disqualifying, since the final work is visibly dominated by the core an-ex concerns and characteristics. The Schanker painting simply doesn't qualify. MdArtLover (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While we are in complete agreement that the Schanker does not qualify, (and I'd appreciate your deleting it), I suspect that we disagree about the assesment of Gottlieb and his early Pictographs. I see refined and quiet qualities in those pictures, that mine a vein of primitive imagery; elogy's to religiosity, tragedy and memory; new and radical for the time; also seen in Newman's work of the 1940s and Rothko of the 1940s. Eventually Gottlieb developed a full range of emotional expression and an articulated use of color in his Bursts. Modernist (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To my eyes, the Gottlieb does have a sort of "tachiste," tactile, primitive quality, a quasi-Gutai celebration of material fragility, that at least relates in some way to ab-ex. The Gorky, however, is an echo of Picasso that is not at all ab-ex, as I understand it. I totally hate deleting things, so I'm still just going to stew for a while. MdArtLover (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a great story about the surrealist artist/dealer Julien Levy seeing Gorky's work for the first time - some early paintings that appeared to him to be derivative of Miro and Picasso. He asked Gorky about that and Gorky replied: When I paint like Miro, I am Miro! and when I paint like Picasso, I am Picasso! To which, Levy replied: Well, when you paint like Gorky, call me. Modernist (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's so true it's almost not funny. That Gorky painting is certainly derivative, but of course, that's not my concern. A painting can be derivative, yet also be clearly an example of abstract expressionism. Conversely, a painting can be highly original, yet not at all an example of abstract expressionism. For example, David Hockney's sun-saturated paintings of Los Angeles socialites and swimming pools are both highly original and absolutely not abstract expressionist. MdArtLover (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I find the inclusion of the Gorky highly misleading as a visual presentation of Ab Ex, and its only relevance to the movement is within Gorky's work as showing the initial signs of his later development. Surely a mature Gorky fits the bill. This painting sits much better as a derivation of Picasso's classical period. There are other dubious inclusions, e.g. Alexander Calder whose article doesn't even mention Ab Ex. I suggest copying all this to Talk:Abstract expressionism and holding discussions there. Tyrenius (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually think both Arshile Gorky and Alexander Calder belong here, if for no other reason than they are both important and seminal influences on the advent of American abstract expressionism. The Gorky actually is a forerunner of the developement of a type of Abstract expressionism, a little beyond the Picasso derived influence. Modernist (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good argument, but the article needs to make this clear and at the moment has no mention of it - just the inclusion of images which on their own don't make sense. Tyrenius (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Two points: (1) Let's not conflate the artist with a particular painting. Gorky himself may qualify, in some of his work, as an abstract expressionist, but this painting does not qualify for inclusion in a gallery of abstract expressionist works. Find a Gorky that qualifies, or don't use a Gorky image at all. (2) As for Calder: I don't think he qualifies. His work is clearly part of the biomorphic abstractionist language that includes Miró and others. If Calder is an abstract expressionist, then so is Miró, which expands the designation "abstract expressionist" to the point of absurdity. This has nothing to do with whether Calder's work is good or important. "Abstract expressionist" is not some sort of honorific term that applies to any work that is strong or original or beautiful. There is much wonderful work that isn't ab-ex, and there is certainly some un-wonderful work that definitely is abstract expressionist. MdArtLover (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, as ever, is find sources. Anything without them can be removed by any editor. Images without any source to validate their relevance can be removed. Tyrenius (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am reluctantly eliminating two works from the gallery, essentially outnumbered because User:Knulclunk also expressed his reservations about the Calder. I think the Miro suggestion is actually pretty interesting, considering he made his first stain paintings in the 1920s and predates everybody. In my opinion the Gorky goes beyond Picasso and is an early example of abstract expressionism. In the absence of a better example I think it should stay, hmmm Miro. Modernist (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't something like this more the ticket? Tyrenius (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely...Modernist (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this one might do. If one could get permission, this could work: there is an emphasis on letting the paint do what it will, a messy, stainy embrace of material chance, that is ab-ex or tachiste in sensibility. But most of even Gorky's abstract works are not really abstract expressionist. The language is much more like that of Roberto Matta and certain works of Miró: biomorphic abstraction. He moves well past the post-Picasso stuff, but still.... Look at these, for example, from the MOMA collection: [3] MdArtLover (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gorky's work is no more than a foretaste of abstract expressionism, as the Met's essay clarifies: "In 1942, Gorky's work moved in an entirely new direction, toward a watery, biomorphic abstraction that incorporated Surrealist automatism while anticipating the gestural brushwork of Abstract Expressionism. " (see Met link above). MdArtLover (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Since even Gorky's most mature work only anticipates abstract expressionism - that is, it consists of biomorphic, quasi-surrealist abstractions with gestural brush work that anticipates ab-ex - then including a decidedly derivative, post-Picasso work in the gallery is extremely tenuous. We have here only a foreshadowing of an anticipation of abstract expressionism - and it's the very first image in the gallery? The gallery should consist only of images that squarely qualify as abstract expressionist. MdArtLover (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Make no mistake, Gorky is an Abstract expressionist painter. There always was just a thin line separating Gorky, from Matta and the Surrealists. He died in 1948 just before the world caught up with American Abstract expressionism and Breton tried to claim him. But his intimate proximity with New York painting and John D. Graham and Willem de Kooning underscores and guarantees his inclusion as an abstract expressionist, albeit a seminal one due to his early suicide. Garden in Sochi, 1941 is Gorky in the guise of Miro, however The Leaf of the Artichoke Is an Owl 1944, and The Water of The Flowery Mill 1944, are both Abstract expressionism at its best. Modernist (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Arshile Gorky The Man, The Time, The Idea by Harold Rosenberg, copyright 1962. A very important early text? Try it. Modernist (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You write, "Make no mistake, Gorky is an Abstract expressionist painter." Well, OK; but that doesn't mean that every single painting he did is an example of ab-ex. This one certainly isn't. It certainly should not be the very first image in a gallery entitled simply "Major works", created for the article entitled "abstract expressionism." It shouldn't be in that gallery, for this article, at all. Now, if you want to make a separate gallery called "Non-ab-ex works by artists known best known for their abstract expressionist work", that's another matter. MdArtLover (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussing personal evaluations isn't going to solve the problem. Please put sourced material into the article. I don't see any reason why the gallery can't include precursors or associated artists etc, as long as this is made explicit, as well as discussed in the article and validated. Tyrenius (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is preventing you from doing the same. This discussion has already produced relevant MOMA and Metmuseum links, so you have a start. God speed you in doing what you say needs doing. MdArtLover (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Only my time, unfortunately. Both of you are obviously much more up on, and motivated by, the subject than I am. I have found that getting the refs can shortcircuit the endless debate syndrome. A read of WP:TPG is always worthwhile... Tyrenius (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that not everything that Gorky painted was abstract expressionist; and I also agree that early precursors of the style should or could be included in the article, - which is why I'd like to leave the Gorky in until a later one appears. My make no mistake comment is intended to underscore the period of the Rosenberg book, because at the time - the late 1950s early 1960s the official consensus about Gorky is that he is an important abstract expressionist painter. Recent historical revisionists appear to call him a Surrealist, which implies a loyalty to Europe and European painting that my understanding of Gorky and his painting career simply does not support. Modernist (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The differences of interpretation would be good to have in the article, expressed of course from a NPOV. Tyrenius (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Modernist writes: ""My make no mistake comment is intended to underscore the period of the Rosenberg book, because at the time - the late 1950s early 1960s the official consensus about Gorky is that he is an important abstract expressionist painter. Recent historical revisionists appear to call him a Surrealist, which implies a loyalty to Europe and European painting that my understanding of Gorky and his painting career simply does not support." ---- Modernist, the concern with the idea of Gorky being "an important abstract expressionist painter" seems to me a bit dated. Rosenberg was writing at a time when both surrealism and Europe were officially outdated, and therefore a surrealist painter of Gorky's generation would be considered retrograde and therefore not "important". It was ideologically necessary to claim that he wasn't surrealist, in order to rescue him from the the dread stigma of being "European" and "surrealist" and therefore not properly up to date — and even not properly American. With the passage of time, we can (I hope) admit that it was perfectly possible for an American to be producing great painting in the 1940s that had more in common with surrealism than with abstract expressionism. This does not make Gorky "unimportant", "unmodern", or "un-American". Rosenberg's ideological and nationalist concern with verifying Gorky's "loyalty" is quaint and strained. It seems obvious that Gorky's work has as much or more in common with Matta's post-surrealist biomorphic abstraction than with abstract expressionism, although I see that his brushwork does, as the metmuseum essays asserts, anticipate abstract expressionism — especially in certain of the very last works. Only images of those works, if available, belong here — and not at the head of the gallery. I'm afraid I must on the whole concur with the revisionists. MdArtLover (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV it's not incumbent on us (actually it's forbidden for us) to decide on the correct viewpoint, only to express the different viewpoints so the reader can make up their own mind. Rosenberg's analysis needs to be included, along with the change of analysis that later occurred. Tyrenius (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent biography of Gorky Black Angel, by Nouritza Matossian c. 2000, reasserts in no uncertain terms his affiliation as an American abstract expressionist painter, which underscores Rosenberg, Sandler, and basically every other reliable art historian. The revisionists are entitled to their opinions. Not only is Gorky an American abstract expressionist, he is one of the best American abstract expressionists, a seminal influence. (In real time and to real people, Gorky is, was and will be seen as an important American abstract expressionist, whose paintings have already significantly influenced generations of artists). Matta is a surrealist, whose use of cosmic space (almost science fiction like space) is somewhat related to Gorky's more painterly space and his use of shapes, and perhaps there was a brief exchange of painterly ideas between them. The personal relationship between the two of them however is something that I would prefer not to discuss, but would shed further light on the brief exchange of painterly ideas. This conversation is over. If you think he is a Surrealist - prove it with valid references, not your opinion. - Modernist (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Modernist writes,"In real time and to real people, Gorky is...," thus declaring most intemperately that the revisionists and others who disagree with him are not "real people". He also arrogantly declares, "This conversation is over" which is tantamount to saying, "Shut up". Well, well. How very not interesting. MdArtLover (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment in real time and to real people, is positively not intended to say that revisionists aren't real people. My saying that this conversation about whether Gorky is or isn't an abstract expressionist is over, is intended as that - its has gotten boring to me, I am not saying shut up to you or to anyone else. I have absolutely no intention of addressing this issue any further.... and I would appreciate it if you would HONOR WP:NPA as I do towards you. I will reitirate my final remark - If you think he is a Surrealist - prove it with valid references, not just your opinion. Modernist (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As for NPA: did you imagine that your "real people" insult was subtle and therefore deniable? Disabuse yourself. MdArtLover (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In real time and to real people refers to my conversations, and experiences over forty years beginning in 1962 at the Gorky retrospective at MoMA and with artists, writers, curators, art dealers, art students and others about Arshile Gorky. I wasn't even thinking about you, or insulting you - why would I do that, I like you..Modernist (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well come on then, stop treating me like I'm some kind of loopy outlier on this. Wikipedia's own article on Arshile Gorky clearly situates Gorky as a crucial influence on abstract expressionism, and only in the mature works — not the quintessential, emblematic abstract expressionist, tout simple, that the Real People hold him to be. Here I quote:

"... The painterly spontaneity of mature works like "The Liver is the Cock's Comb," "The Betrothal II," and "One Year the Milkweed" immediately prefigured Abstract expressionism, and leaders in the New York School have acknowledged Gorky's considerable influence. But his oeuvre is a phenomenal achievement in its own right, synthesizing Surrealism and the sensuous color and painterliness of the School of Paris with his own highly personal formal vocabulary."

Moreover, the Gorky image used in the ab-ex article doesn't even show the relevant prefiguration or influence. This image does not belong — just as an image of a non-cubist Picasso painting would not belong, as the only image of a Picasso work, in a gallery of cubist artwork images, for an article about cubism. I really do not understand this inclusion, nor your vehemence about it. MdArtLover (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, here I go again - I do not agree with you - The portrait of de Kooning by Gorky is already a type of well advanced abstraction that in fact is an early example of American abstract expressionism. Yes, it is rooted in Surrealism, Yes Gorky's later work is more familiar as a classic type of abstract expressionism - although he isn't an action painter in the Rosenberg sense of action painting. The early abstract expressionists like de Kooning and Gorky formed and created the oeuvre, the Gorky figures are crucial to abstract expressionist artists like Marsicano, Cajori, Carone, and others. The de Kooning portrait goes beyond the conventional and like de Koonings figure paintings of the 1940s are early abstract expressionist works that are influenced by John D. Graham. Modernist (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Rooted in surrealism"? That painting hasn't even gotten to surrealism yet — much less is it on the brink of abstract expressionism! It's much closer to Picasso in his neoclassic, post-cubist phase. Gorky's just nowhere near ab-ex in that particular painting. I do not see this at all. But I think you know a lot more, so I'll stop griping and defer to you. MdArtLover (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Manoucher Yektai

Hello, First of all I appreciate all of the work that has been done to develop this article. I have to disclose that I am an interested party in that Manoucher Yektai is my father. He should be placed in the group of artists that defined the movement. His contributions have been well documented from 1952 to 1964 by most, if not all, of the major art critics working for publications such as Art news, Art in America, Arts magazine... There has been a lack of information on the web from these publication but a search of the New York Times archives before 1981 will back up my case. This is the first article that I have wanted to contribute to and thought I should post here before making such a an edit. I would be happy to provide more resources about this artist if anyone feels it necessary.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.190.52 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

chicken?

I saw a painting where some painter had hidden a chicken somewhere in his painting... But I can't remember who it was... Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.106.80 (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Extreme artistic censorship

"The McCarthy era after World War II was a time of extreme artistic censorship in the United States."

That's pitching it a bit strong. I can name several times and places in the Twentieth Century in which painters' work legally could not be shown, or was destroyed by state-tolerated gangs, and a few in which artists were sent to prison (or prison camp) or death.

The closest things I can name in the United States are one or two works of literature that could not be published openly--but which were in fact available with a little effort and expense and no risk to speak of.

If that is "extreme artistic censorship," what do you call it when artists are imprisoned or murdered? Super-duper extreme artistic censorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neumann12 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Objection noted and correction made. Rumiton (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Abstract paintings

In 1977 Betty Parsons Gallery say: Mino Argento. Abstract paintings in which soft pastel colors are contrasted with the hard lines of engineering drawings, all worked out on a grid. The New Yorker. p.10, Oct 17, 1977 (MA3ARG (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

The quotation does not validate inclusion of Mino Argento in the article. It does not say he was an Abstract Expressionist. It just says he does abstract paintings, which is not the same. Ty 01:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Abstract Expressionism?

Willem De Kooning's Woman V is not an example of abstract expressionism. Even if the form of the titular woman is deformed, stylized, and/or disfigured to a certain extent, it is still clearly there, thus making it figurative, in that it is representational: you can see the figure of the lady in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.193.239 (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Abstraction is really generally "semi-abstraction." There is no contradiction in terminology between an image being recognizable and that same image being abstract. The article Abstract art says something about that. Also, "abstract expressionism," as an art movement, has its own definition, which need not perfectly coincide with the definitions of its component terms. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for External link restoration

Nicolas Carone is listed in the article, Abstract expressionism [4] Major artists. On 28 January, 2011 Modernist deleted the link of the video from youtube.com, with the explanation: “mv irrelevant gossip. ”However the video is in the collection of the Smithsonian Archives of American Art, ABSTRACT EXPRESSIONIST ART MOVEMENT IN AMERICA VIDEO DOCUMENTATION PROJECT, 1991-1992. The description of the video: ”The Herskovics produced the videotapes to document the recollections of the artists involved in abstract expressionism. The selection of the artists was based on participation in the "Artists Annuals" between 1951 (9th Street Show) and 1957.” Please help to restore the link, to the "External link" of the article, [5]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-kMxtJ0GfA Nicolas Carone-Abstract Expressionism-Artist of the 9th St. Show—video from youtube.com]. The rest of the deleted links are not gossips but similarly artist's statements about the period of abstract expressionism of the 1950s. (Salmon1 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

I reversed my last edit in the interest of maintaining harmony...Modernist (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to recognize this as a significant contribution toward improving civility and harmony among the editors in a very important and productive section of Wikipedia. (Salmon1 (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

Thank you, lets try to work together in harmony...Modernist (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tip of the hat to both of you. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You did 99% perspiration while we did the 1%. Cheers to you. (Salmon1 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

Now if either of you can do something about Egypt....better yet, avert the next snowstorm that's due on Tuesday. JNW (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal Statistical Society - unreliable source?

User Modernist had deleted the link to an article from Royal Statistical Society magazine, calling it an unreliable source

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_expressionism&action=historysubmit&diff=438457789&oldid=438456006

So what is reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.39.179 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Its also spam...Modernist (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What is spam? Any scholarly article which dissagrees with your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.39.179 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually your website and blog is spam...Modernist (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not my website, but belongs to Royal Statistical Society. In addition it is not a blog, but a magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.39.179 (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

They have too many advertisements and pleas for comments - blog like, and ads for subscribers, but most importantly your article is garbage - its about chimps, elephants, and other animals and kids who paint like the abstract expressionists - oh wow! Some people (67%) even think that the major abstract expressionists are better than the chimps and the elephants - WOW!!!!...Modernist (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The only valid objection to linking a blog is that anyone can post anything he likes in his blog. And this is an edited magazine. The objection that articles allow comments and that this somehow makes it a blog can not be taken seriously. Regarding ads - almost all popular websites have them. And those sites already linked in the Wikipedia article do have ads. I picked two at random: Ref. 17 has Google ads, Ref. 19 advertises exhibition, which asks £10 for admission.

The article that I linked is discussed widely in the media (see, for example, http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26882/ ) and therefore meets Wikipedia criteria for importance. So far you did not offer any logical objections to its conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.39.179 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of repetition in this article (i.e. mentioning several times that some think Abstract Expressionism was "nihilistic.") To say that deKooning's Women paintings were "grotesque" is subjective and judgmental, and not consistent with the artist's vision of that body of work. This may have been the opinion of some critics, however as it is written in this article, the description is not attributed to a specific critic, making it sound like a general comment to be taken as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravesadam (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

"As an example, in 1958, Mark Tobey "became the first American painter since Whistler (1895) to win top prize at the Venice Biennale. New York's two leading art magazines were not interested. Arts mentioned the historic event only in a news column and ARTnews (Managing editor: Thomas B. Hess) ignored it completely. The New York Times and Life printed feature articles."[9]"

Footnote 9 is not specified with a page number and in my opinion is incorrect. I read the whole catalogue and could not find the quotation by Seitz! Who made this common or where is the quotation orginally from?

ASH257 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.55.197.162 (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My reverted edits

User Modernist has reverted several of my edits and warned me for "verging on vandalism".

First of all, I tried to address a complaint that was raised even on this talk page: "There is a lot of repetition in this article (i.e. mentioning several times that some think Abstract Expressionism was "nihilistic.")" The phrase "Additionally, it has an image of being rebellious, anarchic, highly idiosyncratic and, some feel, nihilistic." was/is in the article three times - I have kept only in the first instance, second paragraph. Also, there was another repetition that I removed, containing the phrase "Pollock's energetic action paintings, with their "busy" feel, are different both technically and aesthetically..." - in the second instance, it continued with a few phrases on de Kooning that were not in the first instance, so I merged them where they belong. My changes were reverted (Modernist said that he didn't understood what was the subject of my edit).

Second - there is a list of "major artists" and one of "other artists". I have split the first list in two parts - and why? "Significant artists whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism:" is a very arguable phrase for a list that contains very many artists (almost by definition, an art movement can only have a few "major artists", a few "peaks"), list in which I have found many artists who are too little-known and loosely associated with the movement to "define" it, as well as one artist that is not at all associated with abstract expressionism (Kinetic artist Alexander Calder). So I have made a smaller sub-section with a few significant artists - maybe one or two might be considered arguable (like James Brooks, though he did contributed to action painting alongside Pollock, who lived in the same area with him), but otherwise most of them did trigger some influence (like Helen Frankenthaler). Second big list is with "Significant artists whose mature work relates to American Abstract Expressionism:". I have moved Jean Paul Riopelle from the first list to this one, as French and Francophone abstract expressionism is referred to as "tachisme" or "art informel". And yes, I have noted that those artists are related to American Abstract Expressionism because they either are European AbEx painters or American painters of related art movements (Post-painterly Abstraction, Pop Art, etc.) who were derived from AbEx. User Modernist has reverted these changes as well and written: "Your edits ruined a perfectly good list", which I find subjective. Please consider my suggestions, as I didn't want to make "vandalism" and simply wanted to improve this page. There are many other suggestions that I would have, but I will first obtain consensus on them here. YigruZeltil (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Every change you made was a mess - I suggest that you make no further changes until you learn how...Modernist (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

To sub divide the first list into first generation, second generation, most important, least significant, most press, highest prices doesn't cut it, too subjective. The list is fine as is. The second list is far more eclectic; has tangential figures like Stella who comes later and Olitski etc. is more open to inclusion...Modernist (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think "the list is fine as is". Sure, they may not be an "objective" criteria for most important or least significant, but at least I think words like "significant" and "major" should be removed. I disagree with anyone thinking that someone like Robert de Niro Sr. (who is hardly abstract, being even more figurative than de Kooning, who at least has done abstract paintings in his later career) or even Alma Thomas helped define abstract expressionism.YigruZeltil (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I still think the phrase "Additionally, it has an image of being rebellious, anarchic, highly idiosyncratic and, some feel, nihilistic" should not be repeated three times in this article. (Same goes for "Pollock's energetic action paintings...")YigruZeltil (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Alma Thomas, de Niro and some of the other lesser known abstract expressionists are important and correct inclusions - the period accomodated all kinds of painters - some of whom were barely known - like Alma Thomas, Albert Kotin, and others, but were still part of the major abstract expressionist movement; just as Robert de Niro Sr., Elaine de Kooning, Robert Goodnough, Grace Hartigan and others who also incorporated imagery into their paintings were also. Riopelle had an enormous impact on Joan Mitchell, Sam Francis, Norman Bluhm, Michael Goldberg and the NY art world in general which is why he is on that list as well. I removed one of the phrases you objected to...Modernist (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Mitchell was Riopelle's wife and the others you mentioned were his friends. I don't deny that Alma Thomas or Robert Goodnough do have some value in spite of being lesser known or critically acclaimed, but I still hold the belief that them or Robert de Niro Sr., for that matter, can't be as important as Rothko or Pollock... but, then again, one can hardly come with real arguments (besides something like "number of Google hits", which tends to be irrelevant in most cases).YigruZeltil (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why the long list. The most famous, and the most sought after are for the most part included with images. No question that at this point Gorky, Rothko, Newman, Still, Pollock, de Kooning, Kline, Motherwell, Guston, Hofmann, Gottlieb and Tobey, Brooks, Marca Relli, Tworkov, Tomlin, Reinhardt, Pousette Dart, Baziotes and Stamos were the core of the first generation. But Krasner, Hartigan, Mitchell, Resnick, Frankenthaler and the rest were all closely in step. This article is very interesting - Ninth Street Show - a 1951 group show that covered the very broad ground...Modernist (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Color Field

I'm confused by the inclusion of Color Field painting in this article. The article on Color Field says that it was a separate style from Abstract Expressionism, although, of course, related to it. To me, the goals of the color field painters seemed quite different from those of the abstract expressionists. Also, the lack of sources in this article make me hesitate to trust the information presented here. Plus, several of the sources in the Color Field article (although not all of them are functional) indicate that Color Field painting was created in response to the qualities of Abstract Expressionism. So, what I'm really getting to: should Color Field be included in this article? This article even says multiple times, of Rothko's paintings, "which are not what would usually be called expressionist and which Rothko denied were abstract". Helixer (hábleme) 23:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

During the 1950s the abstract expressionists were divided into two separate styles: Action painting (coined by Harold Rosenberg) referencing among others Willem de Kooning, Franz Kline, Jack Tworkov, James Brooks, and aspects of both Robert Motherwell and Jackson Pollock and the style termed Color field (coined by Clement Greenberg) and roughly referencing among others Clifford Still, Mark Rothko, Barnett Newman, Adolph Gottlieb and aspects of both Jackson Pollock, and Robert Motherwell. The next generation of painters - coined by Greenberg as Post-painterly abstraction are also referred as the Color field painters as are other painters from the early to the late 1960s referenced that way...Modernist (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Consequences final sentence/source

The writing style of the final stanza is problematic. The point seems to be that the City of New York assumed a role of prominence in the art world as a result of many Abstract Expressionist painters being based close by. Further, that later styles such as Pop Art arose, flourished, or somehow benefited from that event. If this is the point, it is not made clear by this paragraph and there is no transition from previous paragraphs indicating a new sub topic.

A MOMA exhibition announcement should not be considered a considered a credible source. The information in the release may be accurate but it fails to demonstrate any rigor whatsoever in researching a credible secondary or tertiary source for this information.

Please consider allowing changes to this section to occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunupoernomo (talk • contribs) 15:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Images

Visual art needs to be seen - stop deleting those images use your brain. Per WP:IAR, WP:UCS - this is an encyclopedia - the gallery is the best and most efficient way to display those paintings and sculpture...Modernist (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

NFC policy declares that galleries of nonfree images are generally unacceptable. No exception is made in the policy for "visual art". And stop violating WP:CIVIL. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The policy needs changing...Modernist (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That opinion plainly doesn't justify your defying it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Common sense indicates the policy is outdated, and predates by several years the building of this encyclopedia. The only way things change is when editors change things. Takes guts and common sense...Modernist (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions

We don't feature every collector's image of abstract expressionism or every cute photograph. This is an historical article in an encyclopedia not a fan magazine. Seems like pure promotion...Modernist (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A contemporary response to the Italian Renaissance is not required; nor is a contemporary response to cubism required, nor is a contemporary response to pop art required, let alone a contemporary response to Abstract expressionism...Modernist (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. Annie Liebowitz is an established artist with her own Wikipage. She is entitled to express her own viewpoint and interpretation of Kline and other artists of abstract expressionism in her own medium. The references to her as a "spam" artist are pejorative and degrading to her as an established artist. As they degrade her as a living artist they are against Wikipedia policy for WP:BLP and should be curtailed. OilandTempura (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So put Annie's photo on Annie's article. Annie Liebowitz is a wonderful photographer, and Steve Martin is a great entertainer, neither one is an Abstract expressionist...Modernist (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Modernist and Freshacconci, both of whom reverted these edits. It's a trivial addition. The link to an auction website, which only shows the image, doesn't substantiate its being included here. To verify its place in the article, several reliable sources would need to cite the photograph's importance as a response to abstract expressionism. Additionally, to justify the addition of a new heading, multiple well-sourced examples of cultural responses are necessary--it's not explained why Leibowitz's image is particularly notable, or merits its own section. Nobody is taking issue with Liebowitz's notability; the insistence on mentioning her photo in this context raises concerns. JNW (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Merging "Abstract art" into this page?

Has there been discussion of merging the article Abstract Art with this page? They are both good and scholarly pages in their own way, but they do seem redundant. I would suggest retaining this one, the name Abstract expressionism being more specific than Abstract art.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Abstract expressionism is an art movement, referencing the 1940s through the 1970s; while Abstract art is a rubric covering a century long and longer conglomeration of dozens of different art movements...Modernist (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your view. Please note that the merger tag is required on the target page, as well as the page to be merged as per WP:merge. When the discussion is complete it is removed.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed with Modernist. Abstract Expressionism is specifically an American art movement. Abstract art describes art as it was produced beginning in the 19th century. The two terms are not synonymous. freshacconci talk to me 19:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, the terms are not even close...Modernist (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Then--if I understand these comments correctly--Abstract art is the genus, and Abstract expressionism is the species? That is, abstract art embraces a great many movements and abstract expressionism is but one of them? Put another way, is there any abstract expressionism that is not abstract art?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• See Willem de Kooning: 'Woman#! - [6] or Jackson Pollock: Portrait and a Dream [7] or the work of dozens of other abstract expressionists...Modernist (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Modernist. Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, attractive paintings both, I appreciate your bringing them to my attention. Thanks also to Epeefleche for weighing in. But--de Kooning venturing into somewhat more figurative work means it's no longer abstract? Seems to me that Picasso's Cubism for example, was both figurative to some degree and considered abstract. So I am not sure if I am yet clear that there can be abstract expressionism that is not abstract art? Instead it looks like there is "pure" abstraction (say Jasper Johns paint squiggles) and somehwat less absolutely pure (Mondrian, definable geometric shapes) and less abstract still (Picasso's Guernica, a protest narrative)--yet all of these still fall under the large rubric Abstract art? Not to be difficult, just trying to get the categories right. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It gets convoluted somewhat, as there is often not a great deal of agreement in these sorts of things. But "abstract" is best understood as "abstracted", i.e. moving away from representation. Terms like non-representational are often used for works that feature no recognizable imagery. And keep in mind abstract expressionism, although the dominant term, is not the only term. Others prefer action painting or the New York School. Abstract art is basically a generic term for any number of art movements. Abstract expressionism is used for what was happening mainly in New York in the 1940 and '50s. freshacconci talk to me 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Your fringe opinion is not how we write articles; see WP:OR and WP:FRINGE...Modernist (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Freshacconci, very helpful. As to Modernist, who has been editing since 2006 and certainly knows better than to remove merge tags, I will simply say--best wishes for a nice weekend.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, have a nice weekend as well...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• A latecomer to this discussion, but per: Modernist, the two terms are not synonymous. Merging these would be rather like merging Landscape Painting with the Hudson River School. JNW (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

General comment

Much of this article lacks RS refs. And at the same time, I notice a great number of opinions presented in the material that lacks RS refs. Frankly, while well-written, it reads as though someone took their (or someone else's) paper and without sources plugged it in here. This by no means refers to all of the article, but it does refer to much of it. I think that the article would benefit from editors looking at that, and addressing it. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In section 7.2 of the Article, who actually belongs there?

Someone should examined the list of so-called artists whose mature work is supposed to be related to the American Abstract Expressionist movement (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_expressionism) (Note 7.2 Other artist) and ask if the following really belong in that section: William Brice, Alexander Bogen (was neither significant nor American), Charles Ragland Bunnell, Edward Corbett, Lynne Mapp Drexler, Jean Dubuffet, Sam Gilliam, Joseph Glasco, John D. Graham, Stephen Greene, Gino Hollander, Frances Kornbluth, André Lanskoy, Michael Loew, John Levee, Herbert Matter (he was not an Abstract Expressionist, he was a photographer and graphic designer), Seong Moy, Jan Müller, Pat Passlof, Earle M. Pilgrim, Aaron Siskind (a photographer who had little to do with the Abstract Expressionist movement), Ary Stillman, and Cora Kelley Ward. Sirswindon (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

While there are possibly a couple of questionable inclusions, most do belong. These all are directly related through their work, and/or influences, and/or their intimate contacts and certainly do belong: John D. Graham, Stephen Greene, Edward Corbett, Jean Dubuffet, Aaron Siskind, Sam Gilliam, Pat Passlof, Herbert Matter, Joseph Glasco, Cora Kelley Ward, Earle M. Pilgrim, Frances Kornbluth, Michael Loew, Jan Müller and John Levee. Matter and his wife Mercedes were both important members of the NY School; many of Siskind's photographs were directly influenced and are reminiscent of the work of his action painter friends...Modernist (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Subject for discussion.

Dear Modernist and JNW, Thank you for stimulating me to do some research. I contacted a professor of Art History at a nearby major university and spent four hours with him, resulting in the following: The American Abstract Expressionist Movement (AAEM) following WWII was an important period, and initially about a small group of New York artists Arshile Gorky, Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning. Later other artists became involved, mostly those in the New York area. My professor then pointed out, the major problem with the article in WIKIPEDIA is that the section “Major artists” is followed by: “Significant artists whose major work defined American Abstract Expressionism” which incorrectly describes about half of the 103 artists listed there. He commented that although Louis Bourgeois, Alexander Calder, Giorgio Cavallon, Mark di Suvero, Jane Frank, Helen Frankenthaler, Morris Graves, Cleve Gray, Philip Guston, David Hare, Paul Jenkins, Earl Kerkam, Albert Kotin, Ibram Lassaw, Alfred Leslie, Mercedes Matter, Stephen Pace, Fuller Potter, Richard Pousette-Dart, Ad Reinhardt, Milton Resnick, may all be considered part of AAEM, only few of their major works were AAE and in his opinion, none of these artists helped defined the AAEM. As to others in the list: William Baziotes was a friend of some Abstract Expressionists, but he did not consider himself as part of their movement, and certainly his major works were considered Surrealism. Jack Bush was mostly associated with the Color Field movement and Post-painterly Abstraction and not of the AAEM. Richard Lippold was known for his geometric constructions and was not part of the AAEM. The professor suggested that because the major works of Enrico Donati were Surrealism, that he and John Chamberlain belongs in the “Other” section. He also questioned why Friedel Dzubas was included in the “Major” section, as although some of his early work was AAE, his major works were Color Field painting. In the same vein he suggested Morris Louis and Ray Parker worked primarily in Color Field painting and should be in the “Other” section. The professor pointed out that although Jimmy Ernst was associated with the Abstract Expressionists, his work was primarily Surrealism and therefore he should also be in the “Other” section. That Louise Nevelson was certainly a notable American sculptor, it was suggested that she only had a minor involvement with the AAEM. As to Isamu Noguchi the professor wondered why he was in the Article except for one single reference and a few works which might be referenced as AAE; and regarding Kenzo Okada, he had little to do with the AAEM. George Rickey was an American kinetic sculptor and had little to do with the AAEM.

The professor said that Norman Lewis and Seymour Lipton were not very notable, and if included at all, they should be in the “Other” section. He questioned why Nicholas Marsicano was in the Article in the first place; although Marsicano taught at the New York School his work was neither significant nor of the AAEM . Canadian painter and sculptor Jean-Paul Riopelle was not connected to the AAEM except that he used some of the dripping techniques of Jackson Pollock. The professor was emphatic that Canadian William Ronald does not belong in the article, nor does Theodore Roszak.

He questioned Elaine de Kooning being included in a section titled: “Significant artists whose major work defined American Abstract Expressionism” because, although she was very active with the group, almost all of her work was in portraiture, and literally none in the AAEM.

Finally he asked why Ethel Schwabacher and Corinne Michelle West were not in the Article, as they both were Abstract Expressionists, maybe not significant, but they were AAE. The professor suggested that as Sonia Gechtoff and James Kelley are usually identified as “second generation abstract expressionist painters” maybe there should be a separate section for those in that generation, for those whose major works did not define the AAEM.

So my question to you: Shouldn’t that 103 names be severely cut in half, totally deleting some and placing the balance into the “Other” section? This might include artists whose “major works” might be considered AAEM, but who did little or nothing to help define the movement.

Finally, I showed him work by Rinaldo Paluzzi, and he remarked that Paluzzi’s work was certainly significant, and although some of it was in the same vein as many of the artists listed in the Major artists section of the Article, he agreed with Modernist and JNW, that Paluzzi is not of the AAEM.

Now I put this up for discussion (and I am not attempting at misdirection): If no reliable source can be found for referencing artists in the “Major” and “Other” sections of the Article, should they not be deleted? Examples: Where in Charles Alston or in Louis Bourgeois is there even one reference to their being part of the AAEM (yes, she befriended Mark Rothko and Jason Pollock, but so what!) ?

Looking forward to this discussion,

Sirswindon

Sirswindon (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No Discussion required

Note - a discussion is not required regarding this well documented subject; Wikipedia is not a blog!!!...Modernist (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all - your professors opinion doesn't amount to anything except just that - someones opinion, or WP:OR. Wikipedia asks for reliable published sources. Please refrain from your erroneous assertions - clearly you are vandalizing various historical articles with no and I repeat NO accurate intelligence regarding the subject...Modernist (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Second of all Abstract expressionism refers to a very large rubric; it defines an era; it defines an attitude in NYC, and California and other parts of the US, during the postwar era; it defines the work of certain artists; it also defines various aspects of painting and sculpture - at the time active art critics - among them - Harold Rosenberg, Clement Greenberg, Leo Steinberg, Meyer Shapiro and others disagreed as to what constituted abstract expressionism Rosenberg defined Action painting, Greenberg defined Color Field; the boundaries expanded and contracted. An artist like Morris Louis begins as an action painter in NYC during the early 50s and ends as a color field artist from Washington DC in the early 60s. His work however is part of the larger abstract expressionist rubric by virtue of what he did, who he knew, where he showed, and when he did what he did. The same holds for many of the inclusions who are mentioned...Modernist (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thirdly this is an extremely well documented subject; this discussion is gratuitous at best, either submit information based on published reliable sources or stop wasting everyone's time just because your inclusion was questioned...Modernist (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fourthly Stop removing referenced content as you did at this article: Corinne Michelle West - it is considered WP:VANDALISM; if you object or have an issue on an articles content, discuss first on that articles talkpage before deleting referenced or any other content and material that you disagree with regarding this subject...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Modernist, I do apologize, if the future I will do as you have suggested. Please go to the talk page on her Article as I have done what you suggested. Sirswindon (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Finally If you want to learn what constitutes Abstract expressionism read some books...Modernist (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

To put it simply, we have to weigh misleading the reader against educating the reader. Bus stop (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Modernist Just who are you to pontificate that a discussion is not required? The strength of WIKIPEDIA is in having these discussions! So I believe a discussion has begun, and yes I have read Marka Herskovic’s NY School: abstract expressionists. Modernist or anyone else, please provide a reference showing that the major work of Alexander Calder, William Ronald, Morris Graves and Theodore Roszak “defined American Abstract Expressionism,” as that is what is required for them to be in what is the section titled: “Major Artists” ( Note: there are no references on their individual websites nor on the website of the article. In fact, there are no references on their individual websites nor on the website of the article as to their even being an Abstract Expressionist; all that seem to be someone’s opinion.) WIKIPEDIA has become a fine source for research, but even small items must be VALIIDATED. Yes, AE is a very large rubric, and as you say: it defines a post war era. Also as you say: the boundaries expanded and contracted. Morris Louis and his work may have been part of “the larger AE rubric of what he did” but that is your (and maybe some other’s opinion); however an opinion (not fact) is all it is. (It is my opinion that Paluzzi’s early work was in the “style” of some of the early AE artists. You made me understand that is not acceptable in WIKIPEDIA. All I ask is that the same standard be used in other articles.) So let us all stick to facts and not vague opinion. Now there is a simple solution. Just add the words: “some of” to “whose major work defined American Abstract Expressionism” and part of the problem could be solved (providing published reliable references as to how someone helped define a movement is almost impossible except for the few who actually started (defined) the movement). Of course it still would be required to show a VALID reference as to their being a part of the American Abstract Expressionist Movement, but that would not be as difficult as showing a reference as to their “defining” AAE. So I am requesting that: “some of” be added to “whose major work defined American Abstract Expressionism” or that published reliable references be provided for all the names in this section. If adding “some of” is not acceptable to clarify this problem, then the entire “whose major work defined American Abstract Expressionism” should be deleted. And I do thank you for taking the time to have a non-confrontational discussion. Sirswindon Sirswindon (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I must amend that to: "some of these artist's major work ...... " because probably it is not possible to find valid, objective (not opinion) references, validating possibly up to half of those on the list who actually defined AAE, the rest came along for the ride. (This is not an opinion, it is a fact.)

Sirswindon (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus required

Any changes you want to make regarding this: "being a major artist whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism." will require consensus...Modernist (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it should be agreed upon, after full discussion. But it is important as how the list of MAJOR artists is introduced, and I do not believe that all the names on the list were "major artists whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism." Some defined it, others (although their major work was AAE), they came along for the ride. Did not only a small group really "define" the movement. Therefore adding some were clarifies the naming of the list. Is that asking too much?

Sirswindon (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You say "they came along for the ride." Does failure of imagination disqualify one for inclusion in a movement? Bus stop (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for entering the discussion. Like any major MOVEMENT, there are the “movers and shakers" and those who do not define it, but only come along for the ride (sometimes making a lot more $$$$$$$ than those that defined it. So what I am proposing is a small modification to the introduction to the list of over 100 names just under “Major artists” --- It should read: Significant artists some of whose major work help define American Abstract Expressionism. My reason for this edit is that not all of the Artists in the list produced mature work which defined AAE. As it now reads it is incorrect as it implies that every name in the list provided mature work that defined AAE. Some defined it and some were American Abstract Expressionists, who were only working in the movement. It may only be a small edit, but it is a significant one. Sirswindon (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_movement#1940.E2.80.931965

That was fast, I just received an email with: "Significant artists some of whose major work helped to define American Abstract Expressionism". Sirswindon (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Research is so Rewarding!

Modernist I do thank you for suggesting that I read Marika Herskovic’s book. “American Expressionism of the 1950’s.” A beautiful collection of Illustrations, but it does not contain any useful reference information regarding the biographies of the artists other than very brief notes as to: Born, Died, Exhibitions,; but nothing as to why they were included in her book. What I found of special interest was there are over twenty-five artists in her book that were not included in the WIKIPEDIA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_expressionism which brings up the question --- Why not? Examples include: Lawrence Calcagno, Leo Amino, Nanno de Groot, Jose de Rivera, James Budd Dixon, Leonard Edmondson, John Ferren, John Grillo, Raoul Hague, Jack Jefferson, Alfred Jenson, Walter Kuhlman, Frank Lobdell, Robert McChesney, Kyle Morris, George Morrison, Leonard Nelson, Robert Preusser, Melville Price, Tony Rosenthal, Richard Ruben, John Saccaro, Hassel Smith, Hassel Wendell Smith, Yvonne Thomas, John von Wicht, and Wilfrid Zogbaum.

Herskovic did include a number of artists, which in the Wiki article are in “Other Artists.” These include: William Brice, Charles Bunnell, Mary Callery, Edward Clark, Edward Corbett, Robert Richenburg.

So it would appear, for the WIKIPEDIA article on Abstract Expressionism to present a list of 100 artists as being “Significant artists whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism” seems to be grossly overstated and very subjective, without presenting anything to validate the statement. So before going any further, and because only a small number of these artists actually defined AAE, I again request that the introduction to the “List of abstract expressionists Major Artists” be changed to read: "Significant artists some of whose major work helped to define American Abstract Expressionism".

Modernist please let us have your comments. Also shouldn’t the names of artists (presented above, starting with Lawrence Calcagno) be added to the list of 100 names in the WIKIPEDIA article on Abstract Expressionism? If not, why not?

Note: Finally, at: (wikipedia.org//index.php?title=Category:Abstract_expressionist_artists&from=A) there is a listing of “200 pages” “out of 225 total” Abstract expressionist artists. I plan to check to see if all the names in Herskovic are in that listing, and also if all the names there are also in the WIKIPEDIA article on Abstract Expressionism. The reason for doing this is that on checking one of the first names listed there (Gretna Campbell), her name was not in the “Other” list in the WIKIPEDIA article on Abstract Expressionism, so how many others were missed?

Sirswindon (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The advice to ignore rather than engage with a troll is sometimes phrased as "Please do not feed the trolls."

I never feed the Trolls...Modernist (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has offered an objection, I shall add Gretna Campbell to the “Other” list. I will also continue to ask others to enter the discussion as to why the 27 other Abstract Expressionist Artists who were included in Marika Herskovic’s book: ‘American Expressionism of the 1950s’ should not also be included in the “Other” section? Should no one offer a valid reason, I plan to add them to the “Other” list. (It is very sad that Modernist, has decided to engage in “name-calling” rather than entering a calm, intelligent discussion) Sirswindon (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?

De Kooning and Pollock reportedly considered Hyman Bloom "the first Abstract Expressionist artist in America". This was after seeing his early work in the "Americans 1942" exhibit. He ended up doing a lot more figurative painting, which is the reason that's often given for his relative obscurity.

"Bloom was the link between Boston Expressionism and the New York School of Abstract Expressionism. Thomas Hess, in Abstract Painting, 1951, reproduces Bloom's Archaeological Treasure in color and is clearly laudatory.13 This praise may have been due to the influence of Hess's favorite painter, Willem de Kooning, who made it very clear to me in a conversation in 1954 that he and Jackson Pollock considered Bloom, whom they had discovered in Americans 1942, 'the first Abstract Expressionist artist in America.'"

Chaet, Bernard (1980). "The Boston Expressionist School: A Painter's Recollections of the Forties". Archives of American Art Journal. 20 (1). The Smithsonian Institution: 28.

I'll just leave this information here, and if anyone thinks it's worth mentioning, you can mention it. Otherwise, ignore. --Rosekelleher (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rosekelleher Your mentioning Bloom to be added was just completed. You could have done it yourself as you were correct in what you wrote. Sirswindon (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sirswindon. I see you added him to the list without any context, which might be a little misleading. I'll take a crack at this myself, and if anyone doesn't like what I do they can revert it. --Rosekelleher (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about where some Artists should be listed.

Please, can Modernist or anyone else please explain why Albert Alcalay, Charles Alston, Alice Baber, William Baziotes, Norman Bluhm, Louise Bourgeois, Ernest Briggs, James Brooks, Fritz Bultman, Jack Bush, and Alexander Calder should not be moved to “Other Artists”? None of them can be considered as Major Abstract Expressionist Artists whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism. Calder belonged to the “Kinetic Art Movement” and the others played no significant role and were minor contributors to the Abstract Expressionist Movement. Sirswindon (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lets be clear - STOP TROLLING are you are going to go through the entire alphabet now - from A to Z? Drop the WP:STICK you're beating a dead horse - just get over it...Modernist (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Modernist you use "name-calling" rather than entering into a polite, constructive discussion. You suggested I do research, which I am doing, and this article needs for it to be done. So stop the name-calling and join in with a constructive discussion, or just go away and hopefully others will join the discussion. Sirswindon (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Several names mentioned above are listed as abstract expressionists at The Met and at MoMA. Coldcreation (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Coldcreation, they are abstract expressionists, but my question is don't they belong in "other" as none of them can be considered as "Major Abstract Expressionist Artists whose mature work defined American Abstract Expressionism". Now, if the introduction to the “List of abstract expressionists Major Artists” is changed to read: "Significant artists some of whose major work helped to define American Abstract Expressionism", then they might be included in Major. (See the TALK above.) Sirswindon (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW James Brooks, William Baziotes, Norman Bluhm, Louise Bourgeois, Ernest Briggs, Fritz Bultman and Jack Bush are all exactly where they should be. As important an influence and practitioner as Alexander Calder is to American painting and sculpture he is also properly placed. Baziotes and Brooks while less known than Rothko, Pollock, and De Kooning are considered of the 'first generation'...Modernist (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Why remove Romul Nuțiu?

Modernist Why did you reject OlivianBRENDA inserting Romul Nuțiu into the “Other” list and give your reason “not an American abstract expressionist” when there are other non-Americans on that list, such as Wols, Kumi Sugai, Bram van Velde, Nína Tryggvadóttir, Antoni Tàpies, Nicolas de Staël and Zao Wou Ki. Reading the WIKIPEDIA article on Romul Nuțiu provides adequate references as to why he belongs with the other non-Americans in this list (or if he does not belong in the list, take all the non-Americans off the list)! Others please comment. Sirswindon (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sirswindon—are you serious? You can't harass another Wikipedia editor. What kind of a section heading is "The Heavy Hand of Modernist Strikes Again"? Please remove that section heading. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I do apologize to you and Modernist, but I was shocked that an experienced Editor would use for a reason “not an American abstract expressionist” when there are other non-Americans on that list. Maybe you can look at the list and explain why Romul Nuțiu should not be added to the list?

Reading the above makes one wonder why Romul Nuțiu is not in the "Other List" and why Modernist has not replied to his "a non-American cannot be on the list" when there are other non-Americans on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.102.212 (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Only following edits by JNW

Per other edits by JNW there are no published references as to Wilke, Wols or Zao Wou Ki being part of the Abstract Expressionism Movement or that their work was stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists, as is required for them to be in this list. If you can, then they should be there. I am not being disruptive, and you know that. You delete an artist by writing “not an American” when there are other artist in the list who were not American. Actually you are being disruptive in not being open to constructive dialog, and following your own rules. Sirswindon (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Forgive me, but bullshit. This has never been about Modernist's behavior; if it was, you have always been free to seek administrative assistance. For at least a month I've watched Rinaldo Paluzzi, and your efforts to add him here as an Abstract Expressionist, and then to credit him similarly at his biography. There are apparently no published references to support this, but we've been through that multiple times. The history here is all about WP:POINTY, and seeking to cause disruption for not getting your way. To quote the Wikipedia guideline directly:

If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content...

do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source.

do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced.

• When I decide to take a half hour or so to gather links to the dozens of disruptive edits, I'll cobble together a report. JNW (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)