Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1

< Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
Latest comment: 10 years ago by TonyTheTiger in topic Addressed comments from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago123 comments3 people in discussion
  • The most important element of Lichtenstein's procedure was "the enlargement and unification of his source material". His method entailed "strengthening of the formal aspects of the composition, a stylization of motif, and a 'freezing' of both emotion and actions". Extreme examples of his formalization become "virtual abstraction" when the viewer recalls that the motif is an element of a larger work. Thus, Lichtenstein reinforced a non-realist view of comic strips and advertisements, presenting them as artificial images with minimalistic graphic techniques. Lichtenstein's magnification of his source material stressed the plainness of his motifs as an equivalent to mechanical commercial drawing, leading to implications about his statements on modern industrial America. Nonetheless, Lichtenstein appears to have accepted the American capitalist industrial culture. - This whole paragraph is not about Drowning Girl, but L as a painter (note how it fits Whaam! just as well). I think it can serve as a sign of what's wrong with this article at a fundamental level: the article purports to be about Drowning Girl, but it goes all over the place and presents unrelated information as being intrinsic to Drowning Girl itself, when it is actually related to L as a painter.
    • One could say that this content is about Lichtenstein at the peak of his career when he painted his two most well-known works and that the content is extremely relevant to works produced in that window of time only.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • One could say that, yes, but one would also have to tie the paragraph in with Drowning Girl. "In Drowning Girl, this is manifested as ..." if the sources support it, for instance. Also, statements such as "Lichtenstein appears to have accepted the American capitalist industrial culture." are opinions and should be attributed to the source in-text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • The whole negative reception section (undue if I ever saw it; many reviews can be mixed) is about L as an artist and not about Drowning Girl in particular. Sure, it could be applicable to Drowning Girl, but in the end it's a cookie cutter section which could be at home in any article on L's works from this period.
  • Oppose barring some serious heavy lifting. This needs to be streamlined to focus on Drowning Girl itself, for one (particularly the reception section, although some other parts look like they could be trimmed). Context is good, but not in this much detail. Barely half the article seems to be about the painting proper. Also, we need attribution for opinions. No work is objectively an artist's best; for Goya, for instance, some may find The Dog his best, while others may prefer Saturn Devouring His Son or The Disasters of War series. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • The style he rarified - How can one "rarify" (make rare) a style?
    • Rewrote (It was from another editor).-TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • That's the exact word used in the source provided. I would imagine given the context the cited source is making the point that he made the style esoterically distant from its ordinary usage. That's a bit of a mouthful, so I'd rather we use rarified like the original source, but I can rewrite to use esoterically distant? Hiding T 08:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • Neither, preferably. Neither will be accessible to the average reader. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
          • Well I've amended the article as I don't think we can call it a unique style given that he's adopted/mimicked a style from elsewhere. The modern art theory of Lichtenstein is that by copying comic book panels and placing them on museum walls he elevated low art to high art. We could say "The style he elevated was...", but that doesn't really strike me as any more accessible? Hiding T 10:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
            • It's a step in the right direction (although I agree, you'd need a bit more than just "elevated"; "adopted" is good in a pinch too). Perhaps "the style he adopted, considered by critics to have brought/elevated the low art of comics to the high art world of galleries, was...", assuming this can be sourced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
              • "Perhaps "the style he adopted, considered by critics to have brought/elevated the low art of comics to the high art world of galleries, was...", assuming this can be sourced." - How do you feel about this wording, Tony? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
                • Do you want me to address this concern?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
                  • I'm explicitly asking for your opinion, so yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
                    • You are asking me to comment on content from an offline source contributed by another editor. From where I sit, I have no problem with your suggestion, but I don't know the source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
                      • You could have mentioned that earlier when I asked. Hiding, does the source support such a wording? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
                        • I'm confused as to what is being asked. The source supports the use of the word rarified. I'm not sure on what basis Crisco 1492 objects to it since it is sourced material. I amended the text to a new source from the one TonyTheTiger used because the one TonyTheTiger used was describing the original comic book style incorrectly, because it was a modern art source and so I utilised a comics critic describing the art and Lichtenstein's use of it instead. Now I'm not sure what you want the text to say. Rarified is directly supported by the text, "adopted", "utilised", "borrowed" or "used" would also work. If you want a source that says he elevated the style, then Roy Lichtenstein: American Indian Encounters is the one. Beaty would work as a counter, pointing out that Lichtenstein's work presents a barrier to comics art being considered high art since it would devalue Lichtenstein. Griffiths' interview would also come into play here. And then Marc Ellerby offers the general view of comics artists on Lichtenstein here that would also expand such a section. But is that all relevant here or in the main Lichtenstein article? I'm not the person who took issue with the word rarified, which is cited and sourced. And the purpose of the text here, at least initially, was to describe the style. I feel this is the best source to describe the style. Hiding T 19:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
                          • My question, originally, was "How do you feel about, and does the source support, 'the style he adopted, considered by critics to have brought/elevated the low art of comics to the high art world of galleries, was...'", a phrasing which would have indicated to readers your explanation of "the point [was] that he made the style esoterically distant from its ordinary usage."? I haven't been talking about rarified for almost three days now, a word which I opposed as to "rarify" (make rare) a style is not common usage and likely not going to be understood. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
                            • And my point is, if the word rarify supports that then yes, the source supports it. As I say, I have no issue with the word rarify so it is perhaps not for me to say what the source supports and does not support. The source states that Lichtenstein rarified the style. I am asking you, does that mean your desired text is supported? My apologies for taking three days to respond to your concerns, I can only edit Wikipedia as time allows. My feeling is since rarified is the word used in the original text, it's the best word to use. Hiding T 15:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Drowning_Girl/archive1&oldid=871354863"