Talk:David Ostrowski

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.simonleegallery.com/artists/david-ostrowski/, https://www.artnet.com/auctions/artists/david-ostrowski/f-a-thing-is-a-thing-in-a-whole-which-its-not-2, and http://www.artnet.com/artists/david-ostrowski/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

I recently removed a lot of material here as copyright violation (see above), and left the page as a short stub; since then, mass of stuff has been added. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see that much – or perhaps any – of it is encyclopaedic. The Work section reads like a school essay, with a lot of the vague and pretentious pseudo-intellectual art-speak that characterises the publicity pages of commercial art galleries. For example, our page reads "Ostrowski's work addresses formlessness and destruction, and an impulse to devalue and ruin painting"; that is an opinion, not a fact, and should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Nor is it supported by the source, a Frieze article (written rigorously, of course, in pretentious pseudo-intellectual art-speak) that discusses various things, but nowhere (that I can see) makes this assertion. Overall, the references are poor: we certainly shouldn't be using blurbs from commercial galleries such as Simon Lee as a reference – those guys are in the art-selling business, and can be relied on to say or do anything that they think might help them to make a buck.

Unless there is consensus here not to, I plan to remove all of that content, and see if we can't get a few solid facts about this quite notable person into our encyclopaedia.

There's also a long and partially-referenced WP:LAUNDRY list of exhibitions, far too long for anyone to want to read and thus pretty useless here. I suggest removing the commercial galleries and limiting the list to significant shows in major institutional galleries (the Whitney, MAXXI, Tate Modern, whatever). I don't immediately see any of those in the list, but perhaps we could reach agreement here on which should be included? Ping Smokyhallow, Lopifalko, Marchjuly for comment on all or any of this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fully supportive of all of this. What you say about removing commercial galleries, and only listing exhibitions at major institutions, nails two points that I've recently been starting to realise. -Lopifalko (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, as it turns out, the stuff contained copyright violations (as I should have noticed at the time). I've removed it per Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Smokyhallow. The article still needs work. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)