ArtnHistory

ArtnHistory is an art writer and researcher who has been involved in the field of fine arts for more than thirty years. ArtnHistory has curated a number of museum exhibitons, contributed to scholarly catalogs and publications and appeared as an authority on television programs. He has written on a wide range of artistic subjects from Renaissance and Baroque Art to Soviet and Chinese Socialist Realism. ArtnHistory has also written extensively on American Art, on the work of the American Impressionists, Tonalism, Orientalism, the American Renaissance, California Plein-Air Painting and the Plein-Air Revival. His work at Wikipedia will entail creating new or expanding some of the existing biographies of American and California Artists, adding detail, footnotes and images to existing biographies and then creating new biographies of notable 20th century artists who should be linked to earlier painters. Academic painting consists of pedagogy, of ideals and techniques that are passed down from teacher to student, so showing the interrelationships and links between artists and movements is critical. My work will be gradual as my day job as a private curator must take precedence, but gradually I wish begin by writing or improving a number of artists biographies. I will only add the footnotes after the bulk of the article is up so that things will appear in order and match the references. Over time, I would like begin adding information on some of the significant dealers, auctioneers, gallery owners, collectors and art historians - living and dead - who have played a significant role - and this I think should be the test for Wikipedia - in the development of American Art. We tend to write a lot about artists, but these other figures are the glue that holds everything together. I have noticed that many of the article on Wikipedia that deal with the subject of art are very short, poorly sourced and there are tremendous gaps, thus I have organized several people to help me work on this area. When we compare the level of detail in many of the art articles to figures in music or even pop culture, we really need to do some work.

Suggestions for English Language Wikipedia Artistic Biography

What should a Wikipedia biography of an artist consist of? Well, the same basic information that is contained in other biographies, where and when they were born, who their parents were, perhaps notable siblings or family members, something brief on childhood experiences, especially where it influences their artistic career. Were their parents artistic? Family members? Did a childhood teacher or mentor or a family member encourage them? Then, their training, when, where and most of all how they studies and who they trained with. This is especially important when it comes to more traditional artists because their type and method of instruction and the way their teachers worked often strongly influenced the direction of their art. Now, to someone unfamiliar with this area of artistic biography, this may not be understandable, but artistic ideas, techniques and concepts are often communicated from teacher to student, sometimes for hundreds of years. A modern or abstract artist may be different. They may have worked in a conceptual way, so the formal training he or she received, if there was formal training, may have little or no bearing on the artist's work. Indeed, the modern artist may not even do any of their work, he may commission it as Andy Warhol did in the 1960s and 1970s or as Jeff Coons does today. But how a traditional artist studies and works or studies and works, is important, but this doesn't mean that a biography would go into detail on the type of paints a painter uses, the exact way he mixes them or stretches a canvas, that would be trivia, uninteresting to the general reader or anyone perhaps except another artist. Where their career is concerned, it is important to note when they began exhibiting their work and where they exhibited their work. Which organizations did they show with which important exhibitions were they a part of and what was the reaction from the public and critic? Did their work sell? Was it popular? If you are unfamiliar with art, let us compare this to music, a very popular area of Wikipedia where there are lengthy entries. An article on a musician or band will speak about where and when the band members met, perhaps who discovered them, who produced their album, who distributed it and what the reaction was. This is directly comparable to the life of an artist, instead of labels and venues, the artist has art organizations and galleries. Instead of song titles, he or she has painting titles. Instead of a review in Melody Maker or the New Music Express an artist of the early 20th Century may had had The International Studio, a popular British publication, the American publications Art & Architecture, The American Magazine of Art, the British magazines, Art Journal or Magazine of Art. At that time, the popular general interest magazines like Harper's McClures and The Mentor were full of art articles too. In contemporary times, an artist of the traditional bent would have American Artist, Plein-Air Magazine, Southwest Art, Art Connoisseur or Artists' Magazine. A more contemporary artist may have Art in America, Art News or Art Forum. Now, to the issue of notability rears its head. Notability is of course a matter of judgement and can be controversial, but again lets compare it to music. If a contemporary artist has been in major exhibitions in his field, is represented by recognized galleries, has had solo exhibitions, and has been written about in the art magazines, that would argue for inclusion. If the artist has been part of major invitational exhibitions at museums or other prestigious venues, that would argue for inclusion. A portrait artist for example, that has done Presidential portraits, Royal Portraits,portraits of Governors or Senators that have been selected for capitals should be included. A muralist or sculptor with important public commissions should be included. On the converse, a contemporary artist whose work is shown at the local frame shop or whose work has appeared in one or two galleries or at the local restaurant for a few years would not warrant inclusion. They would not be significant in their field of art. There are tens of thousands of members at art clubs across the United States, Wikipedia can't have an entry for every one. An artist who has been the subject of a human interest story or two would not warrant inclusion, because that doesn't indicate that someone with any artistic standards has recognized them, but someone who has been covered extensively and had his or her shows reviewed, who is really recognized should be. A celebrity who paints whose work is only known for their celebrity status would not necessarily warrant inclusion. The bar must be higher for contemporary artists than it is for historic artists because clearly their are two temptations, one is for collectors or fans to create a page, the other for a gallery or the artist to create one and these two paths could lead to either a sort of fan page, light on objective information, where, how and why information and full of effusive statements, or a sort of advertisement. The idea is for Wikipedia is to be encyclopedic, an accurate, fact-based and neutral approach to articles on items of public interest that rely on secondary sources that have been published in print or online.