Talk:Francesco Clemente

reads like a promo

The article is written like a promo & not wikipedia style. Manytexts (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

cites miscarry & bibliography problem

The references refer to bibliography rather than to citations being in the text. Hope the inline tag will be enough, otherwise please choose a better one to show what the problem is. Also the bibliography is way out of proportion to the article but can't change this while the refs are attached to that and not in the article itself. Manytexts (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Dear Editors, I understand about conflict of interest. I won't make the edits myself but I would like to propose a change to the introductory paragraph on Francesco Clemente. The proposed version below is more focused on Artist's practice. Francesco Clemente (born March 23, 1952) is a contemporary artist known for figural paintings that investigate philosophical questions of the self and consciousness. Clemente’s work defies expectations of style and linear narrative, and it embraces diverse mediums including oil on canvas, pastel, and watercolor. Clemente’s work is symbolic but resists iconographic readings in its evocation of the body, the emotions of union and love, and spiritual and mythological symbols.

While Clemente’s work is deeply rooted in specific geographies, the artist has embraced a nomadic approach since early in his career. For a generation before it was considered common practice, he has called multiple places home simultaneously -- especially Rome, New York, and cities in India including Madras, Varanasi, and Jodhpur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annazorina (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for using the talk-page to make this request, Annazorina, that makes things much easier. There are two problems with the text you propose (which seems to be the same text that's already been removed from the page two or three times): first, it's not supported by any independent reliable sources (follow the blue link to read about what we mean by that); and secondly, it is not written in anything like the plain, formal, impersonal, and dispassionate tone we consider suitable for an encyclopaedia. To give you an idea of what I mean, may I suggest that you look at some pages on other artists? Pretty much at random, I've glanced at Kasimir Malevich, Francis Bacon and Howard Hodgkin, and while none is perfect, they might give you a taste of the sort of tone that's considered appropriate in this project. I'll put some advice on how to place an edit request below this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

More than one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please suggest,

HI, You suggested changes to Francesco Clemente I replied to you on my talk page also. Please read. Please guide me what to do next, I spent a lot of time in fixing article and I read and researched a lot to fix this one and adding info. I was totally unaware of those two links as being flagged for copyright violation. Please guide me, should I remove those 2 and republish the changes?

Wow, I really had no idea about what's going on here. I really spent time gathering and reading about the artist, and I was very happy fixing different articles, I marked other articles with tags and trying to fix them also. Please now suggest what to do with this one. Should I not include those 2 links in it and republish the changes? Or would you do that? HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting for your answer. I fixed the issues you pointed out and I checked thoroughly for the same. Should I publish it now? HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you edit in the normal Wikipedia way, making small changes supported by independent reliable sources and employing the neutral and dispassionate tone of an encyclopaedia, and then waiting to see how other editors respond. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Whatever I researched is referenced through independent reliable sources Tone is also neutral and just informative, I almost removed all other parts that could cause trouble, as you suggested before. I spent almost 2 days on this article in finding reliable sources. So, what part should I edit first? Work section? HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I was expecting a reply. Anyway, as you suggested I'll first publish the first half, I have to work on references again but it's ok, I really tried to fix a lot after seeing your suggestion on this talk page, I noticed above, quite same as Kasimir Malevich, Francis Bacon and Howard Hodgkin. If you allow me full publication it will save my time. Thanks, I really appreciate your help in this.HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

HeatherMPinchbeck, you don't need my permission to edit Wikipedia. However, since I've already put a bit of time and effort into cleaning up this article, I do have some interest in keeping it encyclopaedic. My recollection of the text you posted is perhaps rather different from your perception of it.

An alternative is for you to follow the procedure for conflict-of-interest editors, as outlined in the section immediately above this, which would invite review of your proposed changes by another editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, well, I think we already debated on the COI issue on my talk page. So, I'll go by sections and edit the article, I am sure you will not find any flaws this time. I really spent a handsome amount of time on this article, so I don't want it wasted. It's very detailed and cited edits, all resources are reliable. I trimmed and rechecked it, and it's way more different from the last edit I performed. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen your edits and pictures, nice work. I have now fixed the first half and aligned everything, found more authentic references and removed others. I'll publish these changes shortly, please only remove parts that you think are not right, I really worked hard on this. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

As you suggested, I updated less than half of the article, I tried my maximum to cite everything from a reliable source related to work section. Please indicate if you find any error and I'll try to fix that. I also tried to maintain the format as much close as the articles you suggested. The further part of the article is just information about solo exhibitions, I'll try to clean that up also. Thanks HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

HeatherMPinchbeck, did you happen to see what I wrote higher up in this section: "I suggest that you edit in the normal Wikipedia way, making small changes supported by independent reliable sources and employing the neutral and dispassionate tone of an encyclopaedia, and then waiting to see how other editors respond"? Because that is still my advice to you; I have no idea why you would think that I was suggesting you overwrite half the existing page. If you dump a great mass of poorly-written and poorly-referenced content in place of the referenced material that was there before (which admittedly is neither complete nor perfect), you can confidently expect to be reverted, no matter how much work you've done on it. Specific problems:

• language, tone: stuff like "seminal" and "key artists" reeks of art-gallery puffery; Wikipedia uses a neutral and dispassionate tone. Our job is to say what Clemente is, not describe how great he is.
• language, basic grammar: "Anthropologist Francesco Pellizzi has also noted it, in which …"? Where is the meaning in that?
• copyright violation: quoted material such as that quote from Pellizzi must be properly marked as such, either by formatting as block-quote or by using quotation marks; unattributed quotation isn't allowed
• source-text integrity: much of what you wrote simply is not supported by the sources cited. Of the Indigo Room, you wrote "… composed of 123 sheets of handmade Pondicherry paper of charcoal drawings dipped in indigo in large basins". But the source doesn't give a number, or say anything about "paper of charcoal" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Nor does your source say which work was included in the Magiciens de la Terre show. If the NYT says Clemente painted frescoes "over a portion of the vaulted ceiling in one of the old theater's vestibules", why do you say he painted "on a landing of the stairs leading to the main dance floor"? What is your source for "Stella Kramrisch, who shaped the field of Indian art"? Really? – she must be pretty old, then, as Indian art goes back to the Stone Age.

Some of the sources you've cited seem potentially useful; thank you for them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I waited for you for almost 3 to 4 days but you didn't reply so I have to post it. you also removed the sources that you are saying are useful. At least let me know what are they. I'll now fix that again and publish it here so you can check. You can simply remove the things you are talking about instead of reverting the well-sourced material. I'll do it last time, after that never, maybe you don't want it published anyway. I just wasted a lot of my time already on it. And instead of helping you remove everything. When I ask for help you don't reply. So I expect you help the data organized. I was just following the style of those articles you mentioned above. Anyway, I'll do the changes Thank youHeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

HeatherMPinchbeck, did you happen to see what I wrote (twice) higher up in this section: "I suggest that you edit in the normal Wikipedia way, making small changes supported by independent reliable sources and employing the neutral and dispassionate tone of an encyclopaedia, and then waiting to see how other editors respond"? Because that is still my advice to you. That is what I suggest you try doing. I don't suggest that you try doing anything other than that, and I don't recommend another attempt at over-writing the whole – or even half – the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes I got your point. I just added some lines in work section, added his movie citation and where he appeared in movies. Some solo exhibitions. A collective of around 10-15 short sentences. Is that ok? Should I publish? I normally did short editings but then some admin said I have COI while I only did grammar and typos section wise, so I am more scared of using Wikipedia. Anyway, please tell me now, should I publish those minor edits now? or paste here so you can see first? I need your help, I can't waste more time on it. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I know about the TEAHOUSE thanks. But you have to tell me here because I want to get rid of it now. I just added some sentences as per your desire. I was just following other article styles you mentioned yourself above. Anyway, this time it's more like the original article, just sentences and nothing more than reliable sources as actual galleries showing and writing about his work. And at one hand you say let's see how other editors respond while on the other you revert everything, I am not getting this, you can remove things you feel inappropriate but you simply rejects the good in it also. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

hello, can we add headings like where we talk about films, can we use heading as films? I'll upload the remaining reliable referenced data soon as per your suggestions of small edits in a Wikipedia way and style. Thanks HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

HeatherMPinchbeck, our convention here is that when you add to an article, you use the variety of English, the date format and the reference format already established in the page. I spent a fair bit of time sorting out your last text-dump, but I'm not really prepared to do that again, sorry! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix the date format. I would want to use headings instead because solo performances are a different thing, work is different, films are different. I corrected the order of years and used heading to separate collaborated work and film section. I fixed the order of dates from older to recent and used headings so it doesn't mix up. I also fixed the reference format, hope that suffices. If you allow and suggest, why not separate solo exhibition from the work section? If you allow I can do that and I'll fix the order of work section HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to expand work chronology

Hi,

First, I would like to declare my COI with this subject: I work for an Arts gallery that will be hosting this artist. I have worked on more detailed chronology of Clemente's work, which I've gathered through several books and other online sources (not the artist directly). I would like to include some of this in this article. Please let me know if this would be ok?

I need to polish it up still, and add references properly, but before I invest time in this, I wanted to get approval first that this would be something that could be considered for this article. Here is my proposed contribution:

Rome and India, 1970s

Throughout the 1970s, Clemente worked mainly with photography and on paper, producing several hundred small ink drawings and pastels. These depict a variety of images, including humans, animals, and objects in a state of transformation.

Undae clemente flamina pulsae (1978)

In the late 1970s, Clemente produced installations that combined drawings and objects. Undae Clemente Flamina Pulsae, now in the collection of the Groeninger Museum (Netherlands), incorporated color photographs of Indian kitsch sculpture, paintings on sheets of metal, and color photographs. The work was commemorated in a small book printed at Kalakshetra Press in Madras (now Chennai), India and published by the gallery Art&Project in Amsterdam.

Billboard-inspired Paintings, 1980s

From the late 1970s through the 1980s, Clemente mostly worked in India at the Theosophical Society compound (in Madras). During this time Clemente developed several large-scale works by joining individual sheets of local handmade paper with handwoven cotton strips. Prominent works in this series include “Sun” (1980, Philadelphia Museum of Art), “Hunger” (1980, Philadelphia Museum of Art), “Moon” (1980, Museum of Modern Art), and “The Four Corners” (1985, Private Collection).

Francesco Clemente Pinxit (1980-81)

Pinxit is a series of 24 Mughal-style miniatures produced on two-hundred-year-old paper that forms part of the collection of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. Clemente undertook this work in Jaipur, India. Clemente developed sketches that included trees-like patterns, architecture, and geometric shapes.

That's it for now. As mentioned, I will source this properly once I get some kind of feedback saying this could be allowed in the article. Thank you for letting me know. CroatianNeptune (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Declined Please submit relevant sources which support these changes.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  12:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francesco Clemente. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326130343/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9227 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9227

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Undae Clemente flamina pulsae 1.jpg
• Undae Clemente flamina pulsae 2.jpg
• Undae Clemente flamina pulsae 3.jpg
• Undae Clemente flamina pulsae 4.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)