445:
because it is a site about exhibit openings. As near as I can tell ArtCat does not even have an art blog! I removed Bloggy, written by Barry
Hoggard who also owns ArtCat, because I could not find Bloggy mentioned on any notable media sources aside from mentions by Paddy Johnson and other notable art bloggers who were once in the Culture Pundits ad network. Most of those mentions came in the form of promotion for Culture Pundits ad sales. I have to agree with some of the opinions on the art blog article in respect to Culture Pundits blogs showing up on both the art blogs article and art criticism article. If anything Barry Hoggard's Culture Pundits is merely an art ad aggregator for specific art bloggers and I can't find anything notable about Culture Pundits itself. Is Culture Pundits and every Culture Pundits affiliated blog notable because the likes of Paddy Johnson was once in their network? I don't think so. I'm not going to point figers, but I do think it is interesting that almost every non-notable art blog mentioned on these two articles are blogs associated with Culture Pundits. If Culture Pundits itself has been mentioned by a reliable and notable source in a manner other than pushing ad sales it would be different.
429:
awards to show their importance. They are all known for art criticism. On the other hand Beauty Flow
Magazine appears to be more about fasion than visual art and ArtId's Hispanic Art Scene has not been mentioned by any reliable sources. If an art blog has impacted art criticism it should be expected that the blogger or art blog has been mentioned on at least a few notable sources. I'm going to remove some of the blogs mentioned and add ones that focus on art criticism and have been mentioned on reliable sources.
31:
273:
82:
64:
92:
22:
175:
148:
185:
546:, though perhaps keeping the link on the navigation table template and adding the one to the list between brackets close to it. As for the 'role of art critics' I think that easily confuses itself with what art criticism is as an activity framed within a society. That is I believe sufficiently covered in the
383:
Where it says: "Artists usually need positive opinions from critics for their work to be viewed and purchased." Since when does the market follow criticism? Thomas
Kinkade, for example, is despised by scholars and critics and has huge commercial success. Kitschy stuff has huge selling power and no
507:
I looked more carefully to the art critic article and now i think you are right; i think it is better to merge them. it is not possible to distinguish the two so clearly and i noticed that also other encyclopedias tend to discuss them together (and art history and art historian are already merged on
407:
Art criticism is historically considered the criticism/debate about visual art. Keep in mind that the suggestion of musicians and authors being 'artists' has only cropped up in the last 50 years or so. There is also already a music criticism article on
Knowledge. Today anyone can be called an artist
597:
if you'd care to look at a pertinent "from scratch" example. So I'm going over those contributions of mine and doing my thing. I'm sure you can see that in this effort I won't be working on art-specific articles for too long, though possibly intermittently. Still I hope to do enough so people can
428:
There is no doubt that bloggers have impacted art criticism. Notable art critic Jerry Saltz has made that clear. However, I'm not sure if some of the blogs mentioned are good examples. Paddy
Johnson, Brian Sherwin, James Kalm, and a few others are very well known and have the press references and
359:
The main subject here seems to be art critics associated with abstract expressionism. I suggest changing the headings to include, for instance, Contemporary Art
Criticism. Notable critics working today in the UK include Sarah Kent, Brian Sewell, Matthew Collings and Adrian Searle, whose views and
492:
I agree that the article can be improved, but i think the two articles need to remain independent and they require different kind of content. "Art criticism" is an article which need to be focus on the historiography of art criticism, which changed significantly through time and it has specific
444:
I think a rule of thumb to go by is if the writer or art blog has a
Knowledge article that has shown reliable sources it is probably worth mentioning in this section. Blogs that have nothing to do with art criticism certainly don't belong in this section. I removed ArtCal, which is now ArtCat,
325:
I hope that the references will show on the page again. I understand that I am "encouraged to expand the content of articles rather than adding links." Yet if I quote I should give the reference of that quotation which makes it legitimate. I also realized that the page prematurely ends.
530:
s lead and afterward establishes criteria of notability for inclusion. I'm thinking being mentioned in reference works (encyclopedias, dictionaries, review scholarly articles) as an art critic is a good start though I'm not entirely sure how 'rising star' art critics will manage... if
572:; the list is based on references (you find them in the bottom and in note). Maybe it can be merged with the work you would like to do. thanks for all the work, it is great to have you engaged in upgrading art related articles! --
337:
I am new to this site. When I realized what importance it might have I decided to contribute financially and add to it. I am discouraged because it seems that instead of recognizing knowledge and diligence this place may be for
493:
references (art criticism is also a topic taught in university); "art critic" is a job and a role within the art world/art system (with a different set of references). I do not believe the two concepts can be merged. --
508:
Knowledge). Maybe art critic content can be included in a session like "role of the art critic" or something like this. in case the article grows significantly we can eventually decide to split it. thanks. --
569:
408:
for just about anything so I think we should be careful about how the art criticism article is presented. Should Martha
Stewart be mentioned here for being called a design and culinary artist? No.
593:
being the first item on my user contributions and having acquired certain notions of how things should work regarding
Knowledge articles. Just had an interlude creating one for a
550:
section and dispersed commentary about their influence in art movements. True enough these could be edited into a more coherent whole taking care to avoid too much repetition.
793:
206:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
360:
writing styles vary. They all have dedicated Wiki entries, but something could be included here to sketch in the overall trends in art criticism in recent years.--
692:
688:
674:
374:
Intro says "Art criticism is the written discussion or evaluation of visual art." I'm not sure it is appropriate to exclude oral (spoken) art, music, etc.
828:
818:
280:
243:
233:
158:
808:
783:
778:
833:
798:
788:
114:
803:
208:
35:
823:
813:
391:
751:
670:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
105:
69:
198:
153:
773:
735:
44:
532:
300:
I added some references to the page yet no references are beeing shown on the page. How can it be remedied? Thank you.
469:
Except for the list of persons writing about art and the gallery, the content seems rather redundant. If you check
660:
691:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
477:
you'll see that they redirect to the activities. If no one objects, I'll do it after I finish the referencing.
395:
726:
652:
361:
648:
755:
710:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
698:
350:
339:
327:
301:
50:
651:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
450:
434:
413:
387:
21:
625:
603:
555:
523:
482:
113:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
97:
695:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
711:
577:
513:
498:
190:
315:
718:
384:
critical backing. Even Hollywood blockbusters can have huge sales despite bad criticism.
446:
430:
409:
677:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
621:
599:
551:
478:
717:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
272:
767:
644:
573:
509:
494:
586:
I'll be sure to make the best of that work. Thank you for making things easier :)
684:
594:
312:
110:
661:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130129075738/http://www.hanshofmann.org/biography
683:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
462:
375:
203:
180:
87:
81:
63:
91:
664:
474:
202:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
759:
740:
629:
607:
581:
559:
517:
502:
486:
454:
438:
417:
399:
378:
364:
353:
342:
330:
318:
304:
470:
174:
147:
522:
Well, I don't have much problem with creating a duly referenced
746:
1)Description. 2) analysis. 3) interpretation 4) suggestions
620:
I oppose the merge - although both articles can be improved...
15:
271:
655:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
598:
take the result of my efforts and apply it elsewhere. --
109:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
687:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
254:
673:This message was posted before February 2018.
8:
349:Thank you for showing the references again.
643:I have just modified one external link on
589:Well, my sudden interest is rather due to
251:
142:
58:
794:Knowledge level-4 vital articles in Arts
310:By fixing the typo in the </ref: -->
144:
60:
19:
212:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
7:
665:http://www.hanshofmann.org/biography
196:This article is within the scope of
103:This article is within the scope of
49:It is of interest to the following
829:Mid-importance Aesthetics articles
819:Mid-importance Philosophy articles
14:
647:. Please take a moment to review
311:closing tag, as I just did. :-) ―
123:Knowledge:WikiProject Visual arts
809:WikiProject Visual arts articles
784:Knowledge vital articles in Arts
779:Knowledge level-4 vital articles
218:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
183:
173:
146:
126:Template:WikiProject Visual arts
90:
80:
62:
29:
20:
568:, I tried to start a list also
238:This article has been rated as
221:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
834:Aesthetics task force articles
799:B-Class vital articles in Arts
789:B-Class level-4 vital articles
1:
760:16:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
741:14:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
608:02:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
582:09:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
560:22:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
518:14:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
503:09:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
487:08:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
365:13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
117:and see a list of open tasks.
804:B-Class visual arts articles
526:that has a quick summary of
379:15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
824:B-Class Aesthetics articles
814:B-Class Philosophy articles
354:22:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
343:20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
331:18:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
319:01:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
305:00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
850:
704:(last update: 5 June 2024)
640:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
630:21:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
542:, I'd have it redirect to
455:01:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
439:00:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
418:16:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
244:project's importance scale
279:
250:
237:
168:
75:
57:
400:12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
636:External links modified
255:Associated task forces:
106:WikiProject Visual arts
774:B-Class vital articles
276:
199:WikiProject Philosophy
275:
36:level-4 vital article
685:regular verification
129:visual arts articles
750:About any painting
675:After February 2018
524:List of art critics
224:Philosophy articles
729:InternetArchiveBot
680:InternetArchiveBot
566:list of art critic
362:Ethicoaestheticist
277:
209:general discussion
98:Visual arts portal
45:content assessment
705:
533:they exist at all
402:
390:comment added by
298:
297:
294:
293:
290:
289:
286:
285:
191:Philosophy portal
141:
140:
137:
136:
841:
739:
730:
703:
702:
681:
424:Art blog section
385:
262:
252:
226:
225:
222:
219:
216:
193:
188:
187:
186:
177:
170:
169:
164:
161:
150:
143:
131:
130:
127:
124:
121:
100:
95:
94:
84:
77:
76:
66:
59:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
849:
848:
844:
843:
842:
840:
839:
838:
764:
763:
748:
733:
728:
696:
689:have permission
679:
653:this simple FaQ
638:
564:Related to the
467:
426:
372:
338:dilettantes!?!?
260:
223:
220:
217:
214:
213:
189:
184:
182:
162:
156:
128:
125:
122:
119:
118:
96:
89:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
847:
845:
837:
836:
831:
826:
821:
816:
811:
806:
801:
796:
791:
786:
781:
776:
766:
765:
747:
744:
723:
722:
715:
668:
667:
659:Added archive
637:
634:
633:
632:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
587:
536:
528:Art criticism'
466:
465:into this one?
459:
425:
422:
405:
371:
368:
357:
356:
346:
345:
334:
333:
322:
321:
296:
295:
292:
291:
288:
287:
284:
283:
278:
268:
267:
265:
263:
257:
256:
248:
247:
240:Mid-importance
236:
230:
229:
227:
195:
194:
178:
166:
165:
163:Mid‑importance
151:
139:
138:
135:
134:
132:
115:the discussion
102:
101:
85:
73:
72:
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
846:
835:
832:
830:
827:
825:
822:
820:
817:
815:
812:
810:
807:
805:
802:
800:
797:
795:
792:
790:
787:
785:
782:
780:
777:
775:
772:
771:
769:
762:
761:
757:
753:
745:
743:
742:
737:
732:
731:
720:
716:
713:
709:
708:
707:
700:
694:
690:
686:
682:
676:
671:
666:
662:
658:
657:
656:
654:
650:
646:
645:Art criticism
641:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
609:
605:
601:
596:
592:
591:Art criticism
588:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
544:Art criticism
541:
537:
534:
529:
525:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
491:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
464:
460:
458:
457:
456:
452:
448:
441:
440:
436:
432:
423:
421:
420:
419:
415:
411:
403:
401:
397:
393:
392:72.221.93.139
389:
381:
380:
377:
369:
367:
366:
363:
355:
352:
348:
347:
344:
341:
336:
335:
332:
329:
324:
323:
320:
317:
314:
309:
308:
307:
306:
303:
282:
274:
270:
269:
266:
264:
259:
258:
253:
249:
245:
241:
235:
232:
231:
228:
211:
210:
205:
201:
200:
192:
181:
179:
176:
172:
171:
167:
160:
155:
152:
149:
145:
133:
116:
112:
108:
107:
99:
93:
88:
86:
83:
79:
78:
74:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
749:
727:
724:
699:source check
678:
672:
669:
642:
639:
595:new dinosaur
590:
565:
547:
543:
539:
527:
468:
443:
442:
427:
406:
404:
382:
373:
358:
299:
239:
207:
197:
104:
51:WikiProjects
34:
752:103.7.77.89
386:—Preceding
120:Visual arts
111:visual arts
70:Visual arts
768:Categories
736:Report bug
540:Art critic
538:Regarding
463:Art critic
447:SunRiddled
431:SunRiddled
410:SunRiddled
281:Aesthetics
215:Philosophy
204:philosophy
159:Aesthetics
154:Philosophy
719:this tool
712:this tool
622:Modernist
600:Dracontes
552:Dracontes
479:Dracontes
351:Protector
340:Protector
328:Protector
302:Protector
39:is rated
725:Cheers.—
388:unsigned
649:my edit
574:Iopensa
510:Iopensa
495:Iopensa
475:painter
370:visual?
242:on the
41:B-class
471:singer
461:Merge
313:Wmahan
47:scale.
548:Today
376:RJFJR
28:This
756:talk
626:talk
604:talk
578:talk
570:here
556:talk
514:talk
499:talk
483:talk
451:talk
435:talk
414:talk
396:talk
693:RfC
663:to
473:or
234:Mid
770::
758:)
706:.
701:}}
697:{{
628:)
606:)
580:)
558:)
516:)
501:)
485:)
453:)
437:)
416:)
398:)
261:/
157::
754:(
738:)
734:(
721:.
714:.
624:(
602:(
576:(
554:(
535:.
512:(
497:(
481:(
449:(
433:(
412:(
394:(
316:.
246:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
