Talk:List of contemporary artists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

High sale price[edit]

I support the addition of high sale prices as part of the criteria at the top of the page, but would like to remove the link to artfacts.net, because inclusion therein does not in itself imply that a high price has been reached. I also think that "have been suggested as alternate criterion for inclusion to this list" should go as well, because it refers to the talkpage discussion. No need to draw attention to the feet peddling furiously beneath the swan.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last sentence of the existing criterium is a good temporarily solution. On the long run we have to come to a well defined description.

Hdboeck (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to Ethicoaestheticist: I don't think a list is used to add behind a name that much information. One can use this talkpage to add arguments if one is convinced an artists should be on the list. Hdboeck (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to come up with a better line. How's this?:
"Artists whose contemporary works have been purchased at auction prices of $10,000 or higher have also been considered."
I also think the link to Artfacts.net should be moved to a footnote.
What say yall?
And as far as all the info after each artist's name. Maybe we could instead have a footnote next to each name...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
$10,000 isn't very high. The top 500 artists by yearly sales listed in the Artprice annual report (link above) have individual sale prices approaching or exceeding $1,000,000. The top 100 hammer prices start at just under $4,000,000.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I'm clear on your point, Ethicoaestheticist: those two lists, top 500 artists by yearly sales and top 100 hammer prices, are those all necessarily contemporary artists or might some of them be artists from long gone generations?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all artists dead or alive, but includes contemporary artists like Jeff Wall, Elizabeth Peyton and Jenny Saville as well as Koons and Hirst. If there's a list of the top 500 contemporary artists ranked by sale price I'd want to use that instead. My primary point is that $10,000 isn't a relatively high sale price.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the market for years. 10.000 dollars for contemporary work is quite a high auction price (I am not talking about gallery prices). Don’t forget that this is an encyclopedia. We have to create a full and complete list of significant artists who are influencing the identity of contemporary art everywhere in the world. It should not be an exlusive list. If people are prepared to pay 10.000 dollars for smaller work we are talking about an artist who at least on a national level is quite respected. Hdboeck (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is exclusive, not a list of all notable contemporary artists. The criteria (until consensus dictates their removal altogether) need to pitched at about the same level. Jenny Saville and Elizabeth Peyton have participated in the Venice Biennale. Xiang Jing and Banksy haven't, but their inclusion in the top 500 list confirms that in sale terms they are of equivalent standing. A wider range of artists can be included without undermining the existing criteria.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand about the exclusivity of this list. Right now in human consciousness we can easily tell the difference between someone who makes no money and someone who makes millions of dollars, but we haven't all the confident knowledge to decide and declare whose work is instilled with wide and long-lasting relevance and intellectual or emotional enlightenment, and whose work is simply there, half forced, and half copied, all for some selfish reason or other.
With that said, what would everyone think if we would include artists who have at least one work that has sold for 100,000 dollars? Do I hear a hundred thousand? Anyone? Anyone?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, an encyclopedical list can never be exclusive. In a encyclopedia we have to bring together all relevant knowledge about a subject. Therefor, we have to creat a full and complete list of significant artists who influencing the identity of contemporary art all around the world. This doesn’t mean that we have to put every notable artists on our list. But if people are prepared to pay at an auction 10.000 dollars for a small piece the artist can be regarded as quite important at least on a national level. If a work is worth 100.000’s of dollars it is a result of a speculative investment or a prestigious hunt of wealthy collectors. Those artists who can sell their work like that belong to the happy few. In that case the parameter would at least be too narrow. We have make it wider with at the end the result that as much as important artists can participate our list. Hdeboeck (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! I like your reasoning. Well said! I agree that $10,000 is a good amount to list as a criterion by which to admit inclusion. Ethicoaestheticist? What say you? Anybody else have something to add?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tha fact that high sale prices are the result of speculation is an argument for leaving them out altogether. However, as I've said above, I broadly agree that high sale prices can be used as a criterion. I would prefer a general statement to that effect, without a specific value - and I would also prefer sources describing a sale price as high. But on any definition of high $10,000 just ain't it. $1,000,000? Maybe. $100,000? Perhaps.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: Maybe we are getting too involved in determining what "good" art is. Maybe it would be simpler if we returned to the criteria of notability listed at WP:ARTIST:

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

If we list these original criteria at the top of the article, then, anyone who wants to list an artist must cite how the proposed artist meets the criteria, which seems more manageable than the labor being on us to resolve a subjective debate. Additionally, we will be well within Wikipedia's guidelines, and well away from getting too involved for anyone's benefit.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to Abie the Fish Peddler

I forgot to congratulate you for the good work. Clearly the work of an open mind...

My best wishes for 2010 to all who participated this discussion.

Hdeboeck (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, Hdeboeck! I'm glad you like the work. It was prompted by the discussions with you and Ethicoaestheticist. I don't think I've ever thought so strenuously about contemporary artists before! Yes, and best wishes from me as well. :-) --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

These criteria from WP:ARTIST are for creating a Wikipedia article in the first place, which means that ANY artist whose work spans 1970-present day and does have a Wikipedia article is eligible to be on this list, otherwise they would not have a Wikipedia article to begin with!!!

Yet, I still see people deleting artists left and right... today there were dozen or so deletions by by 85.179.77.136

So, now the question is how do you reconcile this?

If you delete artists from this list, then you should also be deleting their Wikipedia article, as they also do not meet the criteria for an article either.

or

If the artist does have a Wikipedia article, and their work is 1970-present, they should, by default be included in this list.

-z

--Zumbooruk2 (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might fail WP:ARTIST and pass WP:GNG, thus enabling an article. However, I do agree there should be a list which includes all contemporary artists, maybe List of living artists. Ty 21:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have to admit that this is really bugging me.

I really do think that you guys got way "too involved in determining what 'good' art is"...

None of the other lists of painters/artists seem so "exclusive".

As long as the artist meets criteria in the title of the list, they are included.

Period.

No "good" art, no "bad" art, no "high sale price", etc.

Can anyone explain why this list should be so exclusive, and policed with such vigilantism and zeal?

If you want a "good" artist list, please change this list to a "List of good contemporary artists"

If you want a "high priced" artist list, change this list to a "List of high priced contemporary artists"

And police these new lists with as much zeal as you wish...

But let the rest of us create a new "List of contemporary artists" which will welcome any and all contemporary artists!

Truly, me thinks that this list should just be deleted and replaced by the Category:Contemporary Artists

-z

--Zumbooruk2 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make good points, and the name has created an anomaly. However, lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, but concurrent alternatives for greater reader choice. Ty 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a living artist meets WP:ARTIST and has an article in Wikipedia there is no reason to leave him or her out from the List of contemporary artists. There are artists who are in the Category: Contemporary artists where listed in the list of Contemporary painters as well as in the List of contemporary artists. The two lists are redundant alternatives and results in more exposure for the individuals who are aware of the :”anomaly”. Stick with the rules of Wikipedia and the problem at hand. Encyclopedia has rules and does not exercise judgment. Judgment is made by history and not by wishful thinking or deciding on who or what is good or bad. (Salmon1 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
List of contemporary artists and List of contemporary painters are not obviously redundant, though this could be discussed. I suggest starting a new section if you wish to do this. We actually want to give more "exposure" to articles in the sense of making them more easily accessible to readers seeking that material, so if the two lists do that, then they are a good thing. Ty 06:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I now note there is no List of contemporary painters, so I presume you mean Category:Contemporary painters. You might like to note in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates that categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, but complementary, so there is no redundancy here, as you suggest. Ty 06:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe you meant List of painters by name. Ty 06:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an artist has a Wikipedia article, and if the artist's body of work is between 1970-persent, they should be on this list.
No judgement, no exposure, no "anomaly".
They are an artist, they are contemporary, they belong on this list.
Period.
-z
--Zumbooruk2 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You just made a clear and :"succinct" explanation of my above statement. Thank you for that. (Salmon1 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
What is unacceptable is the bad faith accusation you have made about other editors without any justification, particularly as your main interest in wikipedia[1] seems to be, having created the article on Rhea Carmi, then adding her to as many lists as possible, even creating Category:Mixed-media artists, the current sole occupant of which is Rhea Carmi. Would you by any chance have in mind adding her to this list? However, regardless of that, you have in your previous post raised some valid points to be answered. Ty 05:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I misunderstood did not mean to accused anyone WP:AOBF, however I am genuinely interested to know why is this list so different from most other lists and so zealously policed...
Yes, I am mainly editing Rhea Carmi, I am a friend of the family, but I do not have financial interest (not an agent/gallery/etc), so since I have first hand knowledge, I feel that I can make valid contributions. But I also attempt to fix/improve anything I stumble across. I am stickler for consistency and love to nitpick... so when I see something that is inconsistent and/or missing, I'll fix it (for example, I fixed bunch of lists that were alphabetized under "L" for "List of" instead of the actual name of the list).
Yes, I've addedd Rhea Carmi to a lot of lists and categories, even creating some new categories when I felt that they were missing. I did not see anything wrong with that, as Ty said the same: "We actually want to give more "exposure" to articles in the sense of making them more easily accessible to readers seeking that material", which again raises the question, why aren't all contemporary artists on this list???
And yes, she probably could be added to this list (But I was afraid to do it after reading the discussion...). So maybe not now, but in the near future, after few more exhibits and sales. Her work has already sold for $40K+, which is above the discussed $10K, it was displayed in museums (minor ones so far), and she is getting a lot of recognition/interest recently. -z --Zumbooruk2 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I repositioned my response. Tyrenius please do not change the intent of my response by moving it after your statement. I have no knowledge of what you are writing to Zumbooruk2 (talk) about. As to stick to [[NPOV] which is the most important rule in Wikipedia is advisable for everyone. (Salmon1 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Look at the version you changed.[2] My statement is indented further than yours, which shows that yours was not a response to me, but a response to a higher up post. This is perfectly normal. The version you have now created[3] indents my post below yours and makes it look as though I am responding to your post and saying to you, "What is unacceptable is the bad faith accusation you have made about other editors without any justification." If you think that should be said to you, then I guess leave it there, but it was actually intended to be said to Zumbooruk2. Ty 18:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius we were discussing NPOV and the importance of listing artists in multiple lists when the artists have articles in the Wikipedia. :"..to give more 'exposure' to articles in the sense of making them more easily accessible to readers seeking that material." This has been getting on the way just at this moment by Modernist. I wonder whether you could help? The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an important figure in literature I wonder whether you know if there is a painting relating to that? (Salmon1 (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Are you suggesting this list does not follow NPOV in some way? If so, what is the problem with it? Do you mean the way it is defined or the way it is being edited in relation to that definition or what? I'm afraid I don't know of a painting of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. You might be better of posting at the talk page of that article to discuss with editors there, if you want to add an image to it. It's not relevant to this page. Ty 22:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal of artists[edit]

Some artists have been removed in a recent sweep by an IP address. Mostly I agree, but think the following should be returned:

--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored all the recent IP deletions, considering the above objections and pending agreement here...Modernist (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of names[edit]

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michiel Muyres[edit]

Michiel Muyres is an artist : www.muyrescompany.com also: http://www.maastrichtaktueel.nl/dartagnan-pissoir-waldeckpark-start-serie-kunstwerkenproject-abk-studenten/ http://connect.dsm.nl/de-expositie/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.34.141 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He does not meet the criteria at the top of the page however.Theroadislong (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

The list of contemporary artists contains a number of articles that are not meeting the criteria mentioned. I am proposing that the following artists be removed. I have tried to make sure that none of the artists listed here are in Category:Contemporary_artists or any of its subcategories, or similar categories like Category:Postmodern artists, I have also tried to make sure that none of the artists have been included in exhibitions like Documenta or the Venice Biennale, have received or have been nominated for awards like the Turner Prize or that a monograph on the artists by a major publisher such as Phaidon or Thames & Hudson exists. I'd like to point out, although I hope that this is unnecessary, that this list is not a reflection of my own aesthetic preferences, but rather an attempt to apply objective criteria to establish which artists should be listed. It is quite possible, even likely, that I have overlooked something, so I would appreciate some feedback before I proceed with the edit. Michiel Duvekot 02:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Many of these artists listed are important contemporary artists and should not be removed I am adding feedback to those that are particularly well known...Modernist (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors please add your own input, thanks...Modernist (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further cleanup and additions[edit]

I am proposing further changes to the list. Some artists listed are still not meeting the criteria for inclusion, and some important contemporary artists are missing. I have used artfacts.net to check the ranking of the artists, and took a ranking of less than 2000 as a cut-off. I then checked if they are in any major collections, their prices at auction and if a monograph exists. In some cases I can see why they might still qualify despite their <2000 ranking. I have indicated that with weak keep. Artists that should be added because they do meet the criteria for inclusion are listed under the heading Add.

Remove[edit]

  • Javier Arevalo not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, <$2000 at auction, no monograph
  • Mino Argento not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, $500 at auction, no monograph
  • Thierry Bisch not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, >$20000 at auction, (self published?) monograph
  • Chinwe Chukwuogo-Roy not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, $2000 at auction, no monograph
  • Jon Coffelt not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Sam Dillemans ranks 46860 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Mark Divo ranks 13321 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Joel Ducorroy ranks 17420 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Guy Denning ranks 73934 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Jane Frank is not not a contemporary artist, abstract expressionism not post-1970 contemporary
  • Peter Grzybowski not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Harry Gamboa, Jr. ranked 53562 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • H.R. Giger ranked 7064 on artfacts.net, has own museum, high auction prices, has monographs, not sure if magical realism is a form of contemporary art?
  • Saskia Holmkvist weak keep ranked 4155 on artfacts, in major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • John Stuart Ingle not listed on artfacts.net, in major collections (Metmuseum), $6000-$8000 at auction, has monograph, not really a contemporary artist perhaps?
  • Michael Jansen (artist) ranked 99872 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Mary Jordan (filmmaker) not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no monograph
  • Gerry Judah ranked 59246 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, $9800 at auction, no monograph
  • Nabil Kanso not listed on artfacts, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Jonathon Keats ranked 14657 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Manfred Kielnhofer ranked 18557 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, $2500 at auction, no monograph,
  • Scott Kildall ranked 46065 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Miru Kim ranked 27762 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Allan Linder not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph, probably doesn't even meet WP:NOTE
  • Claude-Max Lochu not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, $1000 at auction, no monograph
  • Lennie Lee not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no monograph
  • Cecilia Lundqvist weak keep ranked 7454 on artfacts.net, in Centre Pompidou - Musée National d´Art Moderne, Paris, no auction records, no monograph
  • Totte Mannes not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, <$1000 at auction, no monograph
  • Ksenia Milicevic not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, < $5000 at auction, no monograph
  • Loren Munk ranked 27414 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, < $3000 at auction, no monograph
  • Leonard_van_Munster ranked 55266 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Alexander Ney weak keep, ranked 21124 on artfacts.net, important collections, has monograph
  • Daniel Ng redirects to Daniel Wu, an actor. There is a non-notable artist called Daniel Ng
  • Graham Nicholls not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Ted Noten ranked 10039 on artfacts.net, in major collections (MoMA), can't find auction prices, has monograph
  • Pedro Pedraja not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Stefano Pasquini ranked 35746 on artfacts.net, not in major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Oliver Payne and Nick Relph weak keep, ranked 2742 on artfacts.net, in major collection (Saatchi), Relph $8000 at auction, no monograph
  • Jacques Pellegrin not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, <$1000 at auction, no monograph
  • Richard Piegza not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • William Powhida weak keep ranked 5960 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, <$2500 at auction, no monograph
  • Ken Rinaldo ranked 41528 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Marc Rembold ranked 12871 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Michael Salter ranked 22813 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Arthur Sarkissian not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Stefanie Schneider ranked 5159 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, +/- $2500 at auction, no monograph
  • Erik Sommer not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Helmut Tollmann not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph, one show in a minor museum in 2006,
  • Jacek Tylicki not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph, notability questionable
  • Cybele Varela 33221 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, monograph
  • Magnus Wallin weak keep ranked 2737 on artfacts.net, in major collection, no monograph, Venice 2001
  • Monika Weiss ranked 8077 on artfacts.net, in major collection, no auction records, monograph
  • Jerry Wilkerson ranked 94621 on artfacts.net as Jerry O. Wilkerson not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Xing Xin ranked 47250 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
  • Yang Maolin ranked 14706 on artfacts.net aka Yang Mao-lin, not in any major collections, > 10K at auction, , no monograph
  • Zheng Lianjie ranked 78200 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph

Add[edit]

This is now complete. I have kept the artists I marked as weak keep in the list. Michiel Duvekot (talk)|(contribs) 23:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with list of modern artists[edit]

There are a number of artists who are listed in both List of modern artists and List of contemporary artists. The page List of modern artists suggests that both lists should be mutually exclusive.

A list of artists that appear in both lists is below. I would like to propose that they are removed from one of the lists so that they appear in either the list of contemporary artists or in the list of modern artists, but not both, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, as in the case of artists who have made important contributions to both modern and contemporary art, as with for example Louise Bourgeois. Category:Modern artists uses a similar criterion to the one used for List of modern artists : dating from the late 19th century until approximately the 1970s. Category:Contemporary artists dates the contemporary period 1960s to present, and the article Contemporary art goes as far back as the 1950. I would suggest that 1970 can work, perhaps with some exceptions for pre-70s work that is clearly postmodern. I'll make an attempt for all listed artists. based on the movement(s) they have belonged to. For example:

Modern: Nouveau Realisme, Abstract Expressionism, Surrealism, Constructivism, Dada, Neo-Dada, Fluxus, Pop Art, Color Field painting, Lyrical abstraction, Tachisme, Art Brut, Post-painterly abstraction, Op art, Hard-edge painting, Minimal art Contemporary: Conceptual art, Postminimalism, Installation art, Land Art, Performance art, Video art, New British Sculpture, YBAs, Neo-expressionism Michiel Duvekot (talk)|(contribs) 21:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern v. contemporary[edit]

In my opinion one list is sufficient and each list is fine to maintain. To draw miniscule distinctions between artists born in the same era, and in some cases the same year, is essentially too subjective; and too empirical. Some contemporary artists belong on both lists - no big deal...Modernist (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added my input above...Modernist (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, Modernist I agree that there is much that is very subjective, and a lot of art resists categorization. I think consistency is a good thing. It makes maintenance easier. I care less about whether Fluxus is a postmodern movement or not (our idea about what is contemporary is likely to change) than that Fluxus artists belong together (that will probably not change). Michiel Duvekot (talk)|(contribs) 22:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hideo Kojima[edit]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it appears as though my correctly formatted and thoughtful inclusion of the artist Hideo Kojima was removed shortly after I posted it. Seeing as he meets every single critera, I am very interested in why this occurred. If somebody could fill me in, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.7.32 (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of artists who create contemporary art, Hideo Kojima is a video game designer. Theroadislong (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that. Video games have been inducted into the Museum of Modern Art as of two years ago and are widely accepted as an artistic medium. Contemporary art is merely art developed within recent history (1970 to the present). Allow me to reiterate the criteria for this list:
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his/her peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the ::subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
My defense for each point:
  • Wikipedia describes Hideo Kojima with this line: "Kojima is consistently named by fans and industry experts alike as being one of the most influential and innovative video game directors and writers in the industry."
  • Metal Gear is widely consider the progenitor of the stealth genre (also also taken Wikipedia).
  • Kojima is the lead creative director for every single Metal Gear title, the four most famous of which (MGS 1-4) boast a 94, 96, 91, and 94 on Metacritic, respectively.
  • See the above three points.
I see no reason for why he does not qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.7.32 (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although he is in the collection of MoMA; what about the Met? the National Gallery? the Art Institute of Chicago? The Louvre? The Pompidou? The Venice Biennial? The Whitney Biennial? He was removed because his work currently does not satisfy this criteria: The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. ...Modernist (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The four bullets you illustrated are separated in an "or" statement. While it is true that he is not featured in The Louvre, I believe by relying on that qualifying factor alone, you are demonstrating a very narrow minded perception of contemporary art. Wikipedia states itself that "Video games have gone on to become an art form (see end of first paragraph: video games)." It is not reasonable to judge such a young art form on the merits of whether or not they are featured at institutions far older than the art form itself. Kojima's work has undoubtedly "won significant critical attention," and I would argue that the technical advancements he has demonstrated with the Fox Engine have become a significant monument to their respective medium. By not including Hideo Kojima, or any video game designers at all for that matter, you are promoting the dreadful notion that all video games are simply toys. And regardless, by your own criteria, Hideo Kojima belongs on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.7.32 (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that he is simply not considered by most institutions of contemporary art yet. The modern alone does not qualify him here - find another list...Modernist (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely irrelevant though. I'm stating why he fits the criteria exactly, and you can't provide an actual reason to exclude him from the list other than "but video games." His inclusion should be reinstated unless you can produce an argument that holds substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.7.32 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When he participates in an important show in the Art World let us know; when he joins an important gallery; and his work is collected by some other museums worldwide; otherwise add him to a list of video game makers...Modernist (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, you're skewing the stated criteria to reflect what I can only assume is a personal bias. The fourth deciding factor is an "or" statement, and the Metal Gear Solid series is not only a significant monument of its medium, but has also received universal acclaim among critics. Furthermore, Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2 were both featured in The Art of Video Games, which started in the Smithsonian American Art Museum (an institution described by Wikipedia as "one of the world's largest collections of art" and having "masterpieces from the Gilded Age"), and toured across ten other art museums throughout the United States. In addition, MGS received the Excellence Award for Interactive Art in 1998 at the Japan Media Arts Festival.
You cannot make an argument against including Hideo Kojima without modifying the current criteria for the sole purpose of excluding an entire artistic medium. I have seen nothing but arbitrary and classist reasons for the removal of Hideo Kojima from the list. You appear to have a shallow understanding of the medium and have neglected to seek further information when making your premature decision to redact his name and insist on continuously ignoring the established set of criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.73.244 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're blowin' smoke. Do you know how to read? MoMA collects furniture, cars, architecture, and other designer oddities and innovations - those designers are not included here either. Stop wasting our time...Modernist (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument's been reduced to calling me illiterate and insulting MoMA, furniture, cars, architecture, and designers while simultaneously ignoring the fact that I gave you what you asked for. You're not moderating a list so much as curating the page to match your personal definition of a contemporary artist. The list should be renamed to "Contemporary Traditional Artists" if anything. It's missing countless designers and filmmakers with great significance in their medium. Your case against them is trite at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.73.244 (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bye...Modernist (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the original poster: the video game designer you have mentioned, while being collected at MoMA does not qualify for this particular list as this is a list of artists, not designers. MoMA collects a great deal of work that falls outside what is considered art (as in visual art). Yes, this is often confusing but this is not meant to be an exhaustive list and there are plenty of lists that this person can be added to. The term contemporary art is exclusive, not inclusive. This is not the opinion of individual Wikipedia editors but rather the consensus of museum professionals, art historians and art critics. While there are artists who work with video games as material (such as Cory Arcangel) this person you mention is not an artist but a designer. That his work has been collected by MoMA definitely goes towards establishing notability to him by Wikipedia standards, it does not make him an artist any more than Charles and Ray Eames -- great designers but not considered artists. That you find exception to this sort of categorization is fine, but this isn't the forum to challenge it. You would need to publish some academic articles arguing that design and art are interchangeable and build some sort of real-world academic consensus. At the moment, scholarly consensus tends to separate the various fields. Further, Hideo Kojima does not appear to make art that is displayed in a gallery or museum as a work of art or installation. He designs video games, some of which have been collected by MoMA as examples of video game design. Gallery art is specific to intent and context. And as this list is not exhaustive, there is criteria that excludes those who are not visual artists by definition. freshacconci talk to me 21:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I didn't know Wikipedia was still on the "art vs design" conundrum. I thought it was 2014. But honestly, I just want to point out one final time that a) Wikipedia clearly states that video games are an artistic medium, b) I linked to an art gallery that visited 11 different art museums and featured Kojima's work, and c) I would rather the criteria for this page be modified than blatantly ignored, since you would understand by reading anything I posted that Kojima's work does meet every single criteria required to be included on the list. As it stands, this page is only representative of what a handful of Wikipedia editors deem to be worthy of artistic praise. It demonstrates an incredibly shallow perception of what art is in the 21st century (a significant portion of Contemporary art, mind you), and could gain a lot by re-branding itself as a list of "Gallery Artists," making room for more a more inclusive list of visual artists and artists who produce more widely accessible works that cannot be classified as either high or low culture. Works that are mass produced, and yet, still hold artistic value. Artists like Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, David Carson, and Chris Avellone, who have all managed to produce incredible pieces of visual and interactive art, but are left out of lists like these because the material accessibility of their work denies them the privilege of being categorized along with those whose works are cherished by the art elites. Wikipedia has a unique opportunity to challenge this status quo with a much more current (and still unbiased) representation of art, but unfortunately, the editors I have encountered today appear to be rife with complacency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.7.32 (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not biased; it's exactly in line with what Wikipedia clearly states in its articles on film and video games. It's sad how incapable anyone's been to meaningfully contradict anything I've said, while still refusing to give thought to a better system. "Complaining" oversimplifies what I'm doing. You'll notice I'm not weakly going in and making changes myself. I understand that would be perceived as vandalizing other editors' hard work. I'm trying to see if it's actually possible to contribute meaningful change to Wikipedia at this stage of its existence. What started as an honorable nod to an artist that I admittedly enjoy, and an attempt to give more credit to the artistic medium of video games, turned into the sad realization that no, you can't meaningfully contribute to Wikipedia as a newcomer, or even expect a meaningful response when your contributions are removed. Reducing my writing to "IDONTLIKEIT" and assuming I have a bias because I spoke highly of a handful of artists is diminutive of what's actually happening here, and if you actually believe that, then you're lying to yourself... (take note of my condescending ellipsis I took from you) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.7.32 (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Saunders (artist)[edit]

I'd like to add Raymond Saunders back onto this list, he is an important American artist with works in MoMA (NY and SF), National Gallery of Art (Washington DC), and Philadelphia Museum of Art, among others (see artcyclopedia). Also, he was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship(1976) and two National Endowment for the Arts Awards(1977, 1984) (see artnet) and has been included in myriad publications including the Thames & Hudson title "Black art and culture in the 20th century" which uses his work as the cover image.Circa73 (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Saunders has only one reference. (That I just fixed, BTW). I'm all for taking a MUCH better look at black artists, so let's see if we can come up with something, but I don't think that inclusion in this list appropriate given the current state of the article. Mduvekot (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article about Saunders now has 23 references, I've added him back on. Glad to hear you interested in taking a better look at artists of the African Diaspora (ahem) Mduvekot, I've added several additional names to the list as wellCirca73 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Somerset Davis[edit]

Hello - I added myself to the list of contemporary artists as I qualify for all the criteria- and have been removed twice.

My name is Emma Somerset Davis I co- founded and was lead artist with the internationally reknowned art/architecture groundbreaking collaborative practice Fashion Architecture Taste in 1991. Working with them to 2008. I have exhibited internationally at Venice Biennale, Manifesta, V and A, Tate etc etc. I continue to exhibit and make works- painting, sculpture and performance internationally and I am well known in my field. I am at least as well known and regarded by my peers as many of the artists on the list.

EmmaSomDavis (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the artist must be written first, preferably by someone other than the artist. Bus stop (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also read WP:COI. In order to be listed in this article, an artist must be notable, have an article and meet the criteria. Continually placing your own name in a list is disruptive and can lead to a block. freshacconci talk to me 01:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

artfacts.net??[edit]

So, uh... Why is the website artfacts.net given any attention on this discussion page, and why should it be relevant to whether an artist be included in the list? Artfacts looks like some kind of hokey investors' scheme, and has nothing to do with art as art.zadignose (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_contemporary_artists&oldid=1207103991"