Talk:Expressionism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Subjective art

--all art is expressionist. all art projects a subjective view of the world, at the very least as the artist necessarily experiences the world subjectively

the article should be changed therefore :)

The last paragraph of this article needs some serious clean-up, and the article as a whole could use some stylistic editing. I'll get around to it eventually, but if anybody else wants to give it a go they should feel free. Junjk 13:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Modernism template

I've added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kandinsky ?

Why is this article is illustrated with "On White II" by Kandinsky?

Isn't that painting better considered a pure abstraction -- or an arrangement of geometric shapes-- rather than exhibiting a "tendency of an artist to distort reality for emotional effect" ?

Can anyone tell us which piece of reality was being distorted ? The title ( "On White II" )would suggest that if the painting is supposed to refer to some thing real, that thing is itself as an arrangement of colored shapes on a white background.

Even the Wikipedia entry for Kandinsky does not mention expressionism except as among the relevant categories listed at the very end.

Can't we put "The Scream" -- or something else like it -- at the beginning of this page ?

Mountshang 00:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The scream here sounds good to me, its usually associated with expressionism. just did it. Kandinsky's should probably be removed. Some images of Max Beckmann's or other German expressionists would probably be a good idea. If youre looking for images for this article, theres several hundred in the expressionist category on wikimedia commons [1] Cfitzart 03:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks -- unless someone else feels strongly about it, both the Kandinsky and the Franz ought to be removed from a page about Expressionsim -- or --- we might change the definition so it does not include "distorting reality". If that were left out -- then we could divide expressionism into two parts: figurative and abstract.

Meanwhile -- sculpture should be added to the list of expressionisms -- though I don't yet know of pictures that are in the public domain. Mountshang 22:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

images

Shouldn't the photos be on the right, coding isn't correct. anyone know how to do it? Artybrad 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that. I can't make it work without exactly the parameters I used to set it up, so I just rolled it back and will forget about the fancy stacking box for now. --sparkit^TALK 03:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I havent got time to do it myself, but go to WP:BUNCH and copy and paste example 2, replacing with the images here. LordHarris 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! But I think that might just have the same problem since it's using almost exactly the same div tag as the template I used before. I suspect the problem is just with IE/Windows, but I don't have IE/Windows to test with. Volunteers? --sparkit^TALK 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

-- yo for some reason, this article won't print, at least into a PDF file. Something is wrong with this article that causes the browser to freeze. Please fix! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.177.88 (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ammending Birth of Tragedy section

I've just taken a shot at rewording the Birth of Tragedy section. It was like this:

In The Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche presented his theory of the ancient dualism between two types of aesthetic experience, namely the Apollonian and the Dionysian; a dualism between a world of the mind, of order, of regularity and polishedness and a world of intoxication and chaos. The Apollonian represented the rationally conceived ideal, whereas the Dionysian represented artistic conception proper, originating from man's subconscious. The analogy with the world of the Greek gods typifies the relationship between these extremes: two godsons, incompatible and yet inseparable. According to Nietzsche, both elements are present in any work of art. The basic characteristics of expressionism are Dionysian: bold colors, distorted forms, two-dimensional, without perspective, and based on feelings (the child) rather than rational thought (the adult).

There are obvious problems here; it confuses N's argument. The article was wanting to utilize his opposition between Dionysian and Reason, but this is Dionysos vs. Socrates, which he develops towards the end of the book, not Dionysos vs. Apollo. Apollo was the god of Dreams; the Oracle at Delphi sat astride intoxicating vapours! Not Reason, but Form, Identity, Tranquility. In pop culture terms, Apollo is marijuana and Dionysos is ecstasy (though not really, of course). Neither are rational. Tragedy is the union of these two principles; it's Euripides that introduces realism and Socrates that, in N's opinion, destroys tragedy. DionysosProteus 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Helli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.87.26 (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Expressionist drama

Why is there no mention of Bertolt Brecht under Expressionist theatre?Lithoderm (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If it should be there, you can add it, preferably referenced. Ty 23:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've checked this out and believe that I was mistaken. The strongest connection I can find in library sources say that his Distancing effect is similar to the goals of Neue Sachlichkeit, which is little more than an analogy. Lithoderm (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Art movements vs. Category:Expressionism

Category:Expressionism is itself a category within Category:Art movements. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

deleted Arshile Gorky since he died in 1948

The statement: Abstract Expressionism, of the 1950s represented primarily of American artist such as Arshile Gorky can be confusing. It is perceived that he was the father of American Abstract Expressionism of the 1950s. The name could be added with clarification. (Salmon1 (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

deleted Lyrical Abstraction

Lyrical abstractions are deleted since they had no formal or representational elements. (Salmon1 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

I've restored Lyrical Abstraction. It was removed with the edit summary: "Lyrical abstractions are deleted since they had no formal or representational elements". This argument is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR: 1) a statement is made (the quote below), 2) there is then a personal interpretation, 3) the two are combined to form a novel conclusion not based on a source. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists defines Lyrical Abstraction as "a type of expressive ... painting".[2]

I've removed this quote:

"Expressionism (is) the manipulation of formal or representational elements to convey intense feelings." <ref>Marilyn Stokstad, [http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/oclc/42451028&referer=brief_results ''Art History, Volume II,''] Revised edition. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall ©1999.) ISBN 0130828726 9780130828729 p.1025</ref>

It is gratuitous at the head of the section "Expressionist groups in painting". It has no context, nor is the author of it given. There is an earlier section where definitions are included, and it should be integrated there, if needed. Furthermore, bold should not be used in the main article text.

Ty 22:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Replenished the stricken text including the author and citation. Deleted Lyrical abstraction on that basis. (Salmon1 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

I've already pointed out that the quote is in the wrong section and is out of place there. You have not taken any notice of the points made above or answered them. Don't just revert. It's edit-warring. See WP:BRD. Ty 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have asked at WP:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Expressionism for the input of other editors here. Ty 23:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please revert the deleted response that I made to you earlier, The fact still remains that Lyrical abstraction is placed in a great number of articles. In this article it has no place based on the well-researched citations and numerous cited examples. Expressionism is not synonymous with the word expressing. It is my intention to be accurate and to serve the public. (Salmon1 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

No response from you has been deleted. If you made such a response and it is not here, then it was not saved properly. There is no limit to the number of articles that Lyrical Abstraction can be placed in, if it is relevant. If "expressive painting" is not Expressionism, what would you categorise it as? You have deleted this referenced material without an explanation:

Lyrical Abstraction, Tachisme<ref>Flight lyric, Paris 1945-1956, texts Patrick-Gilles Persin, Michel and Pierre Descargues Ragon, Musée du Luxembourg, Paris and Skira, Milan, 2006, 280 p. ISBN 8876246797.</ref>

Please state the problem you have with the reference. Ty 00:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil request. The response remains the same: According to Marilyn Stokstad, the British art historian:

“Expressionism (is) the manipulation of formal or representational elements to convey intense feelings.” In order to produce a valuable article one should choose the most pertinent, well referenced examples. Lyrical abstraction is not referenced as part of Expressionism anywhere by Worldcat.org. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

Ref query

Query on the the book "American Abstract and Figurative Expressionism: Style Is Timely Art Is Timeless: An Illustrated Survey With Artists' Statements, Artwork and Biographies(New York School Press, 2009. ISBN 9780967799421." used to substantiate the text:

artists such as Louise Bourgeois, Hans Burkhardt, Mary Callery, Nicolas Carone, Willem de Kooning, Jackson Pollock, and others [13] that took part in figurative expressionism.[14]

Ty 15:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to your request on my talk page I added the page numbers to the article for complete citation. For Reference number 12: pp. 46-49; pp. 62-65; pp. 70-73; pp. 74-77; pp. 94-97; 262-264 it already existed. For reference number 13: pp.24-27; pp.28-31; pp.32-35; pp.52-53; pp.72-75; pp. 112-115 I added (Salmon1 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

The request was not for page numbers. It was for "the exact quotation from the ref which validates the article text", namely "took part in figurative expressionism". The relevant text from the book is requested to be put on this talk page, which specifically validates that statement in the article for each of the named artists: Louise Bourgeois, Hans Burkhardt, Mary Callery, Nicolas Carone, Willem de Kooning, Jackson Pollock. Ty 02:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to your last request on my talk page I am copying quotations from the book: American Abstract and Figurative Expressionism: Style is Timely Art is Timeless, ISBN 9780967799421

• For Jackson Pollock: :"I don't care for "abstract expressionism" . . . and it's certainly not "nonobjective," and not "nonrepresentational" either. I'm very representational some of the time, and a little all of the time. But when you're painting out of your unconscious, figures are bound to emerge. We're all of us influenced by Freud, I guess. I've been a jungian for a long time . . . painting is a state of being . . . . Painting is self-discovery. Every good artist paints what he is." Jackson Pollock, Statement: from Conversation with Artists, published by Selden Rodman, New York, 1957. Reproduced in Jackson Pollock, by Francis V. O’Connor. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1967, p. 73.
  • This does not validate the statement that Pollock "took part in figurative expressionism", only that he is "very representational some of the time." Ty 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• For Lee Krasner: "Painting, for me, when it really ‘happens’ is as miraculous as any natural phenomenon–as, say, a lettuce leaf. By ‘happens,’ I mean the painting in which the inner aspect of man and his outer aspects interlock. One could go on forever as to whether the paint should be thick or thin, whether to paint the woman or the square, hard-edge or soft, but after a while such questions become a bore. They are merely problems in aesthetics, having only to do with the outer man. But the painting I have in mind, painting in which inner and outer are inseparable, transcends technique, transcends subject and moves into the realm of the inevitable–then you have the lettuce leaf." Lee Krasner, Statement: Lee Krasner: A Retrospective, Barbara Rose, The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, and the Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1983. Catalogue, p. 134.
  • This does not validate the statement that Krasner "took part in figurative expressionism". It doesn't mention the term. Ty 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• For Nicolas Carone: "In art, the image is the sensation of an internal experience that does not rely on optics. Image is the spiritual sense of being in the realm of imagination. The image is the elusive form that is revealed by the light of the mind. When the figure goes abstract it deals with the medium that the artist works with. The musician plays the violin which has its own range of music. Painting has the same thing. The plane can be multiplied. When it is analyzed it is a constant addition and subtraction of planes. It is a constant give and take. The content is very important in a painting. You cannot paint an abstract painting without the figurative emotion being involved. It has a narrative but the narrative comes out of the conscious and of the unconscious dialogue. This is a very important factor as the painting develops in scale, dimension and content. Finally, the painting has to breathe. It doesn’t matter whether the painting is abstract or figurative. For me, the painting has to be art and art is abstract." Nicolas Carone, Statement: Interview with the editor. September 4, 2008
  • This does not validate the statement that Carone "took part in figurative expressionism". It doesn't mention the term. Ty 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• For Willem de Kooning: "Spiritually I am wherever my spirit allows me to be, and that is not necessarily in the future. I have no nostalgia, however. If I am confronted with one of those small Mesopotamian figures, I have no nostalgia for it but, instead, I may get into a state of anxiety. Art never seems to me peaceful or pure. I always seem to be wrapped in the melodrama of vulgarity. I do not think of inside or outside—or of art in general—as a situation of comfort. I know there is a terrific idea there somewhere, but whenever I want to get into it, I get a feeling of apathy and want to lie down and go to sleep. Some painters, including myself, do not care what chair they are sitting on. It does not even have to be a comfortable one. They are too nervous to find out where they ought to sit. They do not want to 'sit in style.' Rather, they have found that painting—any kind of painting, any style of painting—to be painting at all, in fact—is a way of living today, a style of living, so to speak. That is where the form of it lies. It is exactly in its uselessness that it is free. Those artists do not want to conform. They only want to be inspired." Willem de Kooning, excerpts from "What Abstract Art Means to Me," Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art (New York), Vol. XVIII, No. 3 (Spring, 1951), p. 7.
  • This does not validate the statement that Kooning "took part in figurative expressionism". It doesn't mention the term. Ty 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There are no quotations given either that validate that Louise Bourgeois, Hans Burkhardt, Mary Callery "took part in figurative expressionism".
  • This reference is not suitable to validate the text and should be removed.
  • Ty 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The quotations substantiate the point that there were Abstract Expressionists who took part in Figurative Expressionism. The referenced page numbers include two reproductions from the work of each artist: one figurative and one non-representational. (Salmon1 (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

"This art book is highly recommended for Libraries supporting both Studio and Art History programs"−CHOICE: Current reviews for Academic Libraries, 2009. (Salmon1 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Frankly to delete Nicolas de Staël, Hans Hartung, Pierre Soulages, Larry Poons, Jules Olitski, Helen Frankenthaler, Norman Bluhm from expressionism is the height of academic absurdity, in defiance of WP:UCS AND WP:IAR. Because an obscure art critic does not mention those people and others by name in her book, does not constitute erasing those expressionist artists and others from history. Nowhere is it stated or believed that only figurative art is considered to be expressionist or formalist. Reliance on one book, or one point of view and one critic, in contradiction to dozens of volumes to the contrary, is well beyond any concept of common sense. Read Walter Darby Bannard, read Clement Greenberg, read Michael Fried read Barbara Rose, read Sidney Tillim for starters...Modernist (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The suggested deletion is an often repeated sentence with no cited reference:

"In the United States and Canada Lyrical Abstraction beginning in the late 1960s and the 1970s. Characterized by the work of Dan Christensen, Peter Young, Ronnie Landfield, Ronald Davis, Larry Poons, Walter Darby Bannard, Charles Arnoldi, Pat Lipsky and many others." (Salmon1 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Refs inserted. If that is what you want, just say so, or use a {{fact}} tag next to the material. NB not a tag to distribute liberally, but where there is a particular need. Ty 03:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of reference

You deleted the added citation for the third time at the paragraph: Expressionist groups in painting. According to Marilyn Stokstad, the British art historian:

“Expressionism (is) the manipulation of formal or representational elements to convey intense feelings.” This reference is in Worldcat.org. I do not see any reason to delete it when the article is poor in citations. (Salmon1 (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

Worldcat.org is not the ultimate arbiter of art values. One quote in isolation is hardly adequate to define the subject. The Tate definition includes, "In expressionist art colour in particular can be highly intense and non-naturalistic, brushwork is typically free and paint application tends to be generous and highly textured. Expressionist art tends to be emotional and sometimes mystical."[3] It ends, "It [Expressionism] went abstract with Abstract Expressionism." We clearly need a section which encompasses Expressionism in abstract art. Lyrical abstraction is one of those facets and is, as I've pointed out above, defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists as "a type of expressive ... painting".[4] You have not answered the question of what expressive painting is categorised as, if it is not categorised as Expressionism. Ty 15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

From the Tate definition: "Expressionism: Specifically, and with a capital letter, the term is associated with modern German art, particularly the Brücke and Blaue Reiter groups, but in this narrow sense is best referred to as German Expressionism. Expressionism as a general term refers to art in which the image of reality is more or less heavily distorted in form and colour in order to make it expressive of the artists inner feelings or ideas about it." The reference cited from the Tate is almost identical with that of Marilyn Stokstad, the British art historian:

“Expressionism (is) the manipulation of formal or representational elements to convey intense feelings.” You have reverted Lyrical Abstraction to the article: Expressionism while you deleted the reference citation. It is appropriate to return the citation by Marilyn Stokstad and add the Tate citation to the place of earlier deletion. (Salmon1 (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

• At the moment the article falls between two stools. It starts "Expressionism was a cultural movement originating in Germany at the start of the 20th-century as a reaction to positivism and other artistic movements such as naturalism and impressionism.[1]", but goes on to cover a rather wider range, though not the widest possible - art historians find it impossible to describe the 9th century Ebbo Gospels or Utrecht Psalter without using the term (with a small "e"). If we are keeping the wide range, I don't see why Lyrical Abstraction should not be included, if Sidney Nolan etc are. If we are sticking to what the Tate calls German Expressionism, then both should go. I don't mind the current balance myself, but the lede should be edited to make the scope clearer. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is not "German Expressionism", but "Expressionism", so it needs to cover the latter subject fully, including later and abstract versions of it. The Tate ends its definition of Expressionism with the statement, "It went abstract with Abstract Expressionism." Yes, the lede needs to reflect this. The lede is a summary of the article, not the determinant of the article content. Ty 02:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about having Lyrical Abstraction be represented in the article as part of Expressionism. According to the reference provided by Tyrenius- BNET Art Publications-concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists, January, 2003 by Ian Chilver:

"lyrical abstraction A rather vague term, used differently by different writers, applied to a type of expressive but non-violent abstract painting flourishing particularly in the 1950s and 1960s; the term was evidently coined by the French painter Georges Mathieu , who spoke of ‘abstraction lyrique’ in 1947. European critics often use it more or less as a synonym for Art Informel or Tachisme ; Americans sometimes see it as an emasculated version of Abstract Expressionism To some writers it implies particularly a lush and sumptuous use of colour."

From the Tate definition:

"Expressionism as a general term refers to art in which the image of reality is more or less heavily distorted in form and colour in order to make it expressive of the artists inner feelings or ideas about it." (Salmon1 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

The Tate definition goes on to expand to a broader definition, which you have omitted. The rest is:

In expressionist art colour in particular can be highly intense and non-naturalistic, brushwork is typically free and paint application tends to be generous and highly textured. Expressionist art tends to be emotional and sometimes mystical. It can be seen as an extension of Romanticism. In its modern form it may be said to start with Van Gogh and then form a major stream of modern art embracing, among many others, Munch, Fauvism and Matisse, Rouault, the Brücke and Blaue Reiter groups, Schiele, Kokoschka, Klee, Beckmann, most of Picasso, Moore, Sutherland, Bacon, Giacometti, Dubuffet, Baselitz, Kiefer, and the New Expressionism of the 1980s. It went abstract with Abstract Expressionism.

Please note the concluding sentence. Ty 02:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Working toward consensus

Copied from: Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Visual arts][5]

Deletion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism

There is a strong opposition by some to the deletion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article, Expressionism. This has been expressed by successive reversion of Lyrical Abstraction to the article and a warning to block me from editing.

I would like to make the argument for the deletion as part of the process of working toward consensus.

There is a paragraph about Lyrical Abstraction that has been placed repeatedly in several Wikipedia articles:

Western painting

Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, 1971, Lyrical Abstraction

”Lyrical Abstraction in the late 1960s is characterized by the paintings of Dan Christensen, Ronnie Landfield, Peter Young and others,and along with the Fluxus movement and Postminimalism (a term first coined by Robert Pincus-Witten in the pages of Artforum in 1969) sought to expand the boundaries of abstract painting and Minimalism by focusing on process, new materials and new ways of expression.”

The same paragraph is repeated in another topic:

History of painting

Section: Washington Color School, Shaped Canvas, Abstract Illusionism, Lyrical Abstraction

Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, 1968, Lyrical Abstraction

”Lyrical Abstraction in the late 1960s is characterized by the paintings of Dan Christensen, Ronnie Landfield, Peter Young and others, and along with the Fluxus movement and Postminimalism (a term first coined by Robert Pincus-Witten in the pages of Artforum in 1969) sought to expand the boundaries of abstract painting and Minimalism by focusing on process, new materials and new ways of expression."

Once again the same paragraph is repeated in another topic:

20th century Western painting

See also: Modern Art, Modernism, Contemporary art, Western painting, History of painting materials and new ways of expression.

Section: Shaped canvas, Washington Color School, Abstract Illusionism, Lyrical Abstraction

Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, 1971, Lyrical Abstraction

"Lyrical Abstraction in the late 1960s is characterized by the paintings of Dan Christensen, Ronnie Landfield, Peter Young and others,and along with the Fluxus movement and Postminimalism (a term first coined by Robert Pincus-Witten in the pages of Artforum in 1969) sought to expand the boundaries of abstract painting and Minimalism by focusing on process, new materials and new ways of expression."

Indeed Lyrical Abstraction was associated with Color Field painting not with Expressionism:

Color Field

Section: Color Field Movement

Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, Rite of Spring, 1985. Ronnie Landfield's work emerged during the 1960s. His works are reflections of both Chinese landscape painting and the Color Field idiom. His paintings bridge Color Field painting with Lyrical Abstraction.

"During the late 1960s Larry Poons whose earlier Dot paintings were associated with Op Art began to produce looser and more free formed paintings that were referred to as his Lozenge Ellipse paintings of 1967-1968. Along with John Hoyland, Walter Darby Bannard, Larry Zox, Ronald Davis, Ronnie Landfield, Dan Christensen and several other young painters a new movement that related to Color Field painting began to form; eventually called Lyrical Abstraction."

Abstract Expressionism

Section: In the 1960s after Abstract Expressionism

"In abstract painting during the 1950s and 1960s several new directions like Hard-edge painting and other forms of Geometric abstraction, as a reaction against the subjectivism of Abstract expressionism began to appear in artist studios and in radical avant-garde circles. Clement Greenberg became the voice of Post-painterly abstraction; by curating an influential exhibition of new painting that toured important art museums throughout the United States in 1964. Color field painting, Hard-edge painting and Lyrical Abstraction emerged as radical new directions."

Late Modernism

Section: Abstract painting and sculpture in the 1960s and 1970s.

Image caption: Ronnie Landfield, Garden of Delight, 1971, Lyrical Abstraction from the early 1970s

"Lyrical Abstraction shares similarities with Color Field Painting and Abstract Expressionism especially in the freewheeling usage of paint - texture and surface. Direct drawing, calligraphic use of line, the effects of brushed, splattered, stained, squeegeed, poured, and splashed paint superficially resemble the effects seen in Abstract Expressionism and Color Field Painting. However the styles are markedly different. Setting it apart from Abstract Expressionism and Action Painting of the 1940s and 1950s is the approach to composition and drama. As seen in Action Painting there is an emphasis on brushstrokes, high compositional drama, dynamic compositional tension. While in Lyrical Abstraction there is a sense of compositional randomness, all over composition, low key and relaxed compositional drama and an emphasis on process, repetition, and an all over sensibility."

In order to consider the exclusion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism one must consider the definition of Expressionism:

Expressionist imagery exploded into modern art from the subconscious. Its divers formal means and emotional effects range from anguish to exuberance. As the powerful, personal creations of modern individuals, these images have little in common except their inventive power and their reliance upon a distinctly private vision.

In the late 1939, at the beginning of World War II, New York welcomed a great number of leading European artists.

The heritage of their interest in the mythic realm of the unconscious would be continued—and extended—by another group of younger, New World artists—New York School.

Relying on the definition of Expressionism and considering all the above repeated Wikipedia segments it should become evident that Lyrical Abstraction should not be part of Expressionism.

There is further consideration for its deletion from the article: Clement Greenberg’s Definition of Modernism according to Barbara Rose:

’’Clement Greenberg, quoting Mathew Arnold, saw the task of the critic as defining the mainstream tradition…But at any given time the mainstream is only part of the total activity…”Greenberg’s argument is that since modernist art emancipated itself from the demands of society, the history of forms has been self-referential and has evolved independently of the history of events.’’

’’Similarly narrative (a literary device), figural representation, and certainly illusionism were strictly proscribed.’’

’’The school of young critics surrounding Greenberg included, most notably: Michael Fried, Rosalind Krauss, Kenworth Moffett, and Walter Darby Bannard.’’

’’By around 1970 the art and theory on which Greenberg and Fried had built their reputations began to look dated and unconvincing as their claims of historical inevitability.’’

Argument for the deletion of Lyrical Abstraction, Tachisme.

The movement emphasized expressive paint handling. It evolved in direct response to American action painting.

’’Tâche means a splash or stain, and as this implies, the movement emphasized expressive paint handling…they too seemed more concerned with the beauty of the surface- or in the case of Mathieu, the act of painting as a performance-than with the metaphysics of l’informe."

For clarification according to the Webster’s New World Dictionary:

Expression: a picturing, representing, or symbolizing in art, music etc.

Expressionism: an early 20th century movement in art, literature, and drama, characterized by distortion of reality and the use of symbols, stylization, etc.

According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists, 2003 © Ian Chilvers, the definition of Lyrical Abstraction:

‘’lyrical abstraction

A rather vague term, used differently by different writers, applied to a type of expressive but non-violent abstract painting flourishing particularly in the 1950s and 1960s; the term was evidently coined by the French painter George Mathieu who spoke of ‘abstraction lyrique’ in 1947. European critics often use it more or less as a synonym for Art informel or Tachisme; Americans sometimes see it as an emasculated version of Abstract Expressionism. To some writers it implies particularly a lush and sumptuous use of colour.’’

The above references provide the justification to delete Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism.

I hope this argument will clarify my intention to serve the public with well researched, clearly referenced articles reflecting a Neutral Point of View. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

I have removed the images from the above, which are non-free and should only be used in articles. You've been requested already to conduct the discussion on the relevant article talk page and not here. There is no prohibition with the same or similar text being used in different articles if it is relevant to them. It is completely irrelevant as to whether Lyrical Abstraction should or should not be included in the article Expressionism. There has been no expression of opposition by threatening to block you. That was a warning for edit-warring: see WP:3RR, which is a standard warning for any editor continually reverting material. Ty 02:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I deleted Lyrical Abstraction from the article Expressionism with explanation,

"Lyrical abstractions are deleted since they had no formal or representational elements,"

and added the definition of Expressionism. According to you:

"It is completely irrelevant as to whether Lyrical Abstraction should or should not be included in the article Expressionism."

Still the added definition was deleted (which I added again) and Lyrical Abstraction was reverted without explanation but a threat, "stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Each case should be looked at individually with the intention to reach consensus which is the power of Wikipedia. (Salmon1 (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

• The text of the warning is not mine, but the standard one agreed by editors at Template:Uw-3rr. The aim of it is to prevent editors from being blocked because of a violation of WP:3RR, which you were on the edge of. I did not revert without an explanation. My edit summary of 22:57, 21 August 2009 said, "Restore Lyrical Abstraction, remove quote - see talk page",[6]. One minute after this, I posted a rationale on the talk page.[7] You did not attempt to discuss it, but reverted my edit on the article at 23:27, 21 August 2009 with the edit summary, "Replenished the stricken text including the author and citation. Deleted Lyrical abstraction on that basis".[8] You then posted the edit summary, which does not address any of the points I made, on the talk page.[9] I reverted your article edit at 23:40, 21 August 2009 with the edit summary, "Discuss on talk page before reverting".[10] At 23:41, I posted on the talk page, "I've already pointed out that the quote is in the wrong section and is out of place there. You have not taken any notice of the points made above or answered them. Don't just revert. It's edit-warring."[11] It is therefore quite incorrect of you to say to me that you were "reverted without explanation but a threat". The WP:3RR warning was not given until 00:13, 22 August 2009.[12] Ty 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification and working toward consensus

I presented the study, titled:

” Working toward consensus.”

in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. An argument made for the:

”deletion of Lyrical Abstraction from the article, Expressionism.” (Salmon1 (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

The same day I received a reply in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts by Tyrenius where he stated:

"...It is completely irrelevant as to whether Lyrical Abstraction should or should not be included in the article Expressionism." Ty 02:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Following the reply the same day 21:42, 26 August 2009 I deleted Lyrical Abstraction from Expressionism with the description of action:

“consensus was reached to allow for the deletion of Lyrical Abstraction.”

According to Tyrenius:

”OK, it's now been reverted by a third different editor,[13] which + Johnbod on the talk page means you are in a minority of one against 4. The consensus at the moment is clearly against removal, but discussion is still in progress on the talk page.” Ty 00:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Freshacconci 00:17, 27 August 2009 - replenished deletion of Lyrical Abstraction. The description of action:

“I don’t see a consensus for this”

Johnbod 21:16 22 August 2009 - on Revision history of Talk:Expressionism. The description of action:

“Comment” ”I don't see why Lyrical Abstraction should not be included, if Sidney Nolan etc are.”

Modernist 04:39, 22 August 2009 - deleted quote of Expressionism by Marilyn Stokstad and replenished Lyrical Abstraction. the description of action:

”rvt nonsenses per WP:UCS and WP:IAR.”

Modernist 13:41, 22 August 2009 - The description of action:

”re-added quote.”

Modernist 16:44, 22 August 2009 - deleted quote. The description of action:

”per talk.”

I don’t see the fourth party against the deletion. (Salmon1 (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

You have named four editors: Freshacconci, Johnbod, Modernist, Tyrenius. You have taken my quote out of context and have possibly misunderstood it. With the sentence preceding it, it reads: "There is no prohibition with the same or similar text being used in different articles if it is relevant to them. It is completely irrelevant as to whether Lyrical Abstraction should or should not be included in the article Expressionism"; i.e. the use of text in other articles is irrelevant as far as considering text in this article: each article needs to be judged individually on its own merits.

There is no need to continually wikilink words in your posts, when they are easily understandable. It just makes your text harder to read and confusing. You should especially not wikilink words in other people's posts which you quote, when they did not do this themselves in the first place, as you are thereby misrepresenting and actually misquoting them. Bold should be avoided in talk page posts: see Wikipedia:TPG#Good_practices.

I gained the impression from your initial arguments that you considered Expressionism was a figurative genre, and abstract movements should not be included. Is this a correct interpretation of your position?

Ty 23:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you named yourself as a participant in the above dispute, please read the information below:

Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been trusted with access to restricted technical features ("tools"). For example, administrators can protect and delete pages, and block other editors. See Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools.

Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers; they are not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved.

Respect and civility is a necessary feature in communication. (Salmon1 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

I am aware of that and have not used any admin tools in the dispute or indicated that I would, so I don't see what the problem is. Your posts are somewhat cryptic at times. Ty 01:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

About the list of artists

It just seems kind of immensely disproportionate towards american artists when they don't even have much importance to art history, comparing to german or austrian (who ridiculously only get two) expressionists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.215.194 (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)